CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Evolution and Science EducationScience Education and PedagogyReligious Education and Schools

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND RELIGION

Open access
Reiss, Michael J.·2009·Evolution
DOI 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00714.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Belief in creationism and intelligent design is widespread and gaining significance in a number of countries. This article examines the characteristics of science and of religions and the possible relationship between science and religion. I argue that creationism is sometimes best seen not as a misconception but as a worldview. In such instances, the most to which a science educator (whether in school, college or university) can normally aspire is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, the scientific worldview is unlikely to supplant a creationist one for students who are firm creationists. We can help students to find their evolutionary biology courses interesting and intellectually challenging without their being threatening. Effective teaching in this area can help students not only learn about the theory of evolution but better appreciate the way science is done, the procedures by which scientific knowledge accumulates, the limitations of science, and the ways in which scientific knowledge differs from other forms of knowledge.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00714.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The creative power of blind selection conflicts with our teleological intuitions about functional complexity and our intuitive design stance.

    “Moreover, the creative power of blind selection also conflicts with our teleological intuitions (in the sense of goal-directedness) about functional complexity, and our intuitive design stance (Kelemen and Rosset 2009; Reiss 2009).”

    From Natural Selection Does Care about Truth (2014) · cites this paper as Reiss 2009

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. Al-Hayani, 2005, Islam and science: contradiction or concordance, Zygon, 40, 565, 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2005.00688.x · DOI
  2. Attfield, 2006, Creation, evolution and meaning
  3. Ayala, 2006, Darwin and intelligent design
  4. Baker, 2003, Bone of contention: is evolution true?, 3rd edn
  5. Barbour, 1990, Religion in an age of science: the gifford lectures 1989-1991, 1
  6. Behe, 1996, Darwin's black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution
  7. Behe, 2003, God and design: the teleological argument and modern science, 277, 10.4324/9780203398265_chapter_15 · DOI
  8. Berry, 1988, God and evolution
  9. Brooke, 1991, Science and Religion: some historical perspectives
  10. Chalmers, 1999, What is this thing called science
  11. Chinsamy, 2007, Accepting evolution, Evolution, 62, 248, 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00276.x · DOI
  12. Colburn, 2006, Clergy views on evolution, creationism, science, and religion, J. Res. Sci. Teaching, 43, 419, 10.1002/tea.20109 · DOI
  13. Dawkins, 2006, The God delusion
  14. Dembski, 1999, Intelligent design: the bridge between science & theology
  15. Dembski, 2003, God and design: the teleological argument and modern science, 251, 10.4324/9780203398265_chapter_14 · DOI
  16. Dennett, 2006, Breaking the Spell: religion as a natural phenomenon
  17. Evans, 2000, Imagining the impossible: magical, scientific, and religious thinking in children, 305, 10.1017/CBO9780511571381.012 · DOI
  18. Gauch, 2009, Science, worldviews, and education, 10.1007/s11191-006-9059-1 · DOI
  19. Gould, 1999, Rocks of ages: science and religion in the fullness of life
  20. Grigg, 2008, Beyond the God delusion: how radical theology harmonizes science and religion
  21. Hall, 1975, The Truth: god or evolution?
  22. Hayward, 1985, Creation and evolution: the facts and fallacies
  23. Heinze, 1973, Creation vs. evolution, 2nd revised edn
  24. Hick, 19761985, Death and eternal life
  25. Hinde, 1999, Why Gods Persist: a scientific approach to religion
  26. Hinnels, 1991, A Handbook of living religions
  27. Hitching, 1982, The Neck of the giraffe or where Darwin went wrong
  28. Jackson, 2007, Teaching about scientific origins: taking account of creationism, 159
  29. Jackson, 1995, Hearts and minds in the science classroom: the education of a confirmed evolutionist, J. Res. Sci. Teaching, 32, 585, 10.1002/tea.3660320606 · DOI
  30. Johnson, 1999, The wedge: breaking the modernist monopoly on science, Touchstone, 12, 18
  31. Jones, L., and M. J.Reiss, eds. 2007. Teaching about scientific origins: taking account of creationism. Peter Lang, New York, NY.
  32. Kitcher, 1983, Abusing science: the case against creationism
  33. Kuhn, 1970, The structure of scientific revolutions
  34. Lakatos, 1978, The methodology of scientific research programmes, 10.1017/CBO9780511621123 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Lee, 2005, Religion and health: a review and critical analysis, Zygon, 40, 443, 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2005.00674.x · DOI · Paper page
  36. Mabud, 1991, Theory of evolution: an assessment from the Islamic point of view
  37. Macbeth, 1974, Darwin retried
  38. Manson, N. A. ed. 2003. God and design: the teleological argument and modern science. Routledge, London, UK.
  39. Meadows, 2007, Teaching about scientific origins: taking account of creationism, 145
  40. Merton, 1973, The Sociology of Science: theoretical and empirical investigations
  41. Miller, 2006, Public acceptance of evolution, Science, 313, 765, 10.1126/science.1126746 · DOI
  42. Negus, 2005, God, Humanity and the Cosmos, 2nd edn revised and expanded as a companion to the science-religion debate, 231
  43. Number, 2006, The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design
  44. Numbers, 2000, Antievolution in the Antipodes: from protesting evolution to promoting creationism in New Zealand, British J. History Sci., 33, 335, 10.1017/S0007087499004045 · DOI
  45. Peacocke, 2001, Paths from science towards god: the end of all our exploring
  46. Pennock, 1999, Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism, 10.7551/mitpress/6870.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Plimmer, 1994, Telling lies for god: reason vs creationism
  48. Polkinghorne, 1994, The Gifford Lectures for 1993-4
  49. Polkinghorne, 2005, The continuing interaction of science and religion, Zygon, 40, 43, 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2005.00641.x · DOI
  50. Popper, 19341972, The logic of scientific discovery
  51. Ray, 16912005, The wisdom of god manifested in the works of the creation
  52. Reiss, 2005, Learning to Teach science in the secondary school: a companion to school experience, 2nd edn
  53. Reiss, 2008, Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue?, Stud. Sci. Education, 44, 157, 10.1080/03057260802264214 · DOI
  54. Reynolds, 1983, The biology of religion
  55. Roszak, 1994, God and the final frontier, New Scientist 28 March, 40
  56. Ruse, 2005, The evolution-creation struggle, 10.4159/9780674042971 · DOI
  57. Southgate, 2008, The groaning of creation: God, evolution and the problem of evil
  58. Southgate, 2005, God, humanity and the cosmos, 2nd edn revised and expanded as a companion to the science-religion debate, 154
  59. Smart, 1989, The World's religions: old traditions and modern transformations
  60. Szerszynski, 2005, Rethinking the secular: science, technology, and religion today, Zygon, 40, 813, 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2005.00709.x · DOI
  61. Watson, 1975, The great brain robbery
  62. Watts, F. ed. 1998. Science meets faith. SPCK, London, UK.
  63. White, 1978, What about origins?
  64. Williams, 2001, Doing without adam and eve: sociobiology and original sin
  65. Williams, 2008, Creationist teaching in School Science: a UK perspective, Evol. Edu. Outreach1, 87, 10.1007/s12052-007-0006-7 · DOI
  66. Yearley, 2005, Making sense of science: understanding the social study of science, 10.4135/9781446222218 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Reiss, M. J.
Affiliations
University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Reiss, Michael J.
ORCID
Reiss, Michael J.
Venue
Evolution
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2009-07
Volume
63
Issue
7
Pages
1934-1941
ISSN
  • 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-5646
DOI
10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00714.x
OpenAlex
W2097191431
Cited by
61
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
28.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 2253 d)
Locations
  • Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IOE EPrints (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Religious Education and Schools
Keywords
creationism, intelligent design, evolution education, science and religion, worldview, science education, nature of science, scientific knowledge
MeSH terms
Education, Biological Evolution, Religion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review