Science and religion in Philippine education
July 7th, 2009 by blackshamaScience and religion is a big issue in the United States, and increasingly in other developed countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK. In other countries of the European Union, it was until recently a non-issue. During the early years of John Paul II’s pontificate, the well known evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould who described himself as agnostic Jew, was invited to give a talk in the Vatican for priests who do science. He was the only layman non-Catholic billeted in a seminary within sight of Saint Peter’s with two elderly Jesuits who asked him “Why is evolution STILL an issue in America?” Gould who stereotypically believed that Catholic priests are anti-evolution, was dumbfounded. Thus even in the center of the Vatican, evolution is a non-issue. Darwinian Theory is the litmus test to gauge acceptance of science in society.
Thus in America, many studies have tried to gauge acceptance of science and strength of religious belief. A recent issue of Scientific American estimates acceptance of evolution in the USA as around 33%, the lowest among OECD countries. The USA is a paradox. It is the most scientifically advanced nation but has the least acceptance of scientific truth (some Middle Eastern countries are lower in acceptance but they have state religions). While the courts have struck down attempts of religious groups to give “equal time” to creationism and intelligent design in school as violative of the separation of church and state principle, the movement to do so continues.
In the Philippines, we do not have any quantitative and published data to show acceptance of science in society. If I recall correctly, the Ateneo de Manila once had a project to survey the misconceptions in science teaching in basic education. The intersection of religious belief and acceptance of scientific principles was part of this project. I don’t know if the results have been released.
The Astronomical League of the Philippines and the Rizal Technological University (RTU) Astronomy Department sponsored a study to measure acceptance of scientific principles in astronomy among basic education teachers. The study conducted by Professor Jesus Rodriguez Torres surveyed 102 teachers’ attitudes to certain astronomical concepts. In the question “Is the Earth the center of the universe” 31.37% of respondents said the “earth was immovable as stated in the Psalms” and 32.35% said that the writer of the Biblical passage couldn’t have known that the Earth moves. Only 6.86% said the Bible was erroneous.
Prof. Torres was disturbed by respondents answer to the question “How long was the process of the formation of the universe?” 20.58% responded “six days” and 46.07% responded “6000 years based on 2 Peter 3:8″
The reader can download the pdf file and read the findings in their totality. What should make science teachers like me think about is that there is this reluctance TO CHALLENGE RELIGION when it comes to science. There is this reluctance to SAY THE BIBLE AND CHURCH ARE wrong when it comes to scientific fact.
There was a time when a student organization invited a creationist to speak at the Ateneo. The university allowed it but the Jesuit scientists lead by Fr Dan McNamara conducted a talk on science the next day and the day after explaining what the Catholic position on science is. A Catholic can say the Church is wrong when it says something scientific since the Church is not in the business of determining what is scientific or not even if it has priests who are scientists!
Readers may have misgivings on how the questions were framed but Torres’ study is the first one published to tackle a previously “untouchable” subject in Philippine education. Even at the secular University of the Philippines, science professors are loathe to confront students’ religious beliefs and how this affects their understanding of science. However once I had to warn a student that he will get a grade of 5.0 if he insisted on using religious explanations to answer a science exam and in oral reports in class. I warned him that preaching of a religion in class is inadmissable at UP and I won’t hesitate to lodge a complaint. He dropped the course accordingly. But this case is extremely rare.
The one thing that disturbs me is that Torres’ subjects are science teachers. Some students who belong to fundamentalist sects tell me that they are instructed by their ministers to just keep quiet, answer the questions as needed to pass the course and not to believe. Science teachers cannot impose belief but should be able to teach students to consider scientific concepts as plausible hypotheses. With a Bible Christian biology student, we came to this position after she talked to me about her quandaries. If she doesn’t accept evolution as a hypothesis, then it is her own lookout for after she has logically considered the arguments, this affects how she understands nature.
However while Professor Torres and I are loathe to confront fundamentalism directly, there are instances when we have to do so.
July 7, 2009 at 4:26 pm
It is a taboo to speak of Evolution and secularism in this country isn’t it? As a biology student I do find that many of my more religious classmates don’t believe in evolution. Should we tackle the problem of scientific secularism head on or silently?
July 7, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Like Galileo, HEAD ON!
July 8, 2009 at 1:03 am
head on but you have to prove the bishops wrong!
July 8, 2009 at 1:53 am
since when have the bishops been right? ROTFLMAO
November 19, 2009 at 12:17 am
HEAD ON! even my theology professor said that the bible is not a science book, and the genesis isn’t true
too bad many don’t know that
July 7, 2009 at 10:52 pm
tackle it head – on; make http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com required reading :D
July 9, 2009 at 1:18 am
eherm statisticiang pulpol
making gospel conclusions from flawed data… and using flawed methods
July 9, 2009 at 4:14 pm
who made gospel conclusions? who reads the parables and metaphors literally? duh.
good thing you now know how to use references. carry on. that shall elevate your intelligence, however pretensious.
July 9, 2009 at 6:59 pm
ask your fellow believers – statististiciang pulpol
July 7, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I don’t believe in evolution myself, but neither do I believe creation of the world happened in just six days. The Bible was never meant to be a science manual; science is believed by my church to be a necessary tool given by God to help man live in better ways on the earth. Scientific inquiry is important to intellectual development and even ethical behavior in daily life.
Our country’s being devoid of appreciation of scientific thought in the very culture contributes to its degradation. Maybe this is a side effect of our country’s being a Catholic-dominated country.
July 7, 2009 at 6:33 pm
No one should “believe” in evolution. We just have to accept is as a likely fact. But facts by themselves do not assure salvation.
July 7, 2009 at 11:13 pm
fact #1 – if i jump off a 100 foot high cliff – i will accelerate at 9.8 meters per second squared.
fact #2 – if i jump off a 100 foot high cliff and accelerate at 9.8 meters per second squared, i will hit the ground with a splat, and I will be dead
fact #3 – knowing fact#1 and #2 – i decided not to jump off the cliff, sweet salvation from one hard splat, baby =)
July 7, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I don’t think it is Catholicism per se. Even non-Catholic religions tend to do the same thing. This will persist in a feudal society where certain elites have the monopoly of dispensing salvation or what looks like salvation.
We need real Reformation, not upturned umbrellas, Apostles, Brothers and all sorts of God’s messengers!
July 8, 2009 at 1:54 am
try Yahoo Messenger – you might hear your deity’s message.
July 8, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Sorry I don’t use Yahoo Messenger. I get revelation from a bottle of Johnnie Walker! LOL!
July 7, 2009 at 9:13 pm
There is no truth to the stories that the Ombudsman has filed charges against the head of University Phlippines Mindanao (about half-a-millioon pesos (plus) in funds).
———-
Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez said, “Case records are replete with pieces of evidence more than sufficient to support a finding of probable cause, against respondent, for violation of Art. 218 of the RPC—Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts.”
http://manilatimes.net/national/2009/july/07/yehey/prov/20090707pro1.html
July 7, 2009 at 10:43 pm
the first question is “is the earth the center of the universe”. my personal answer is i’m not sure (e), then (b)… i’m not sure because the universe is expanding from any point of view. then, why can we not say the earth is at the center?
next, my interpretation of the data is that the majority (~65%) don’t believe in the bible as science (sum of b, c and d). not exactly flying colors, but not bad.
next, i’d say that the question about the age of the universe, from the text, its clear that the reason the kids answered that is coz the teachers didn’t stress the fact about the age of the universe. its a sad omission, but easily rectifiable.
July 7, 2009 at 10:53 pm
oops, the question isn’t age of the universe. the question is how long is the formation of the universe. i personally have no idea how long it was “formed”. i don’t even know what the question means. the big bang itself was pretty quick — can we not say the universe was formed then?
the students knew the age of the earth tho. its not bad at all.
July 8, 2009 at 1:57 am
based on your premise, the accurate answer would be “you don’t know and you don’t have information available to make a conclusive determination.”
However, given the earth’s position in the Milky Way galaxy, and the Milky Way galaxy’s position relative to all other known galaxies in the known universe, saying that the earth is in the center of the universe is incorrect.
July 7, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Evolution is a real thing. We, humans evolved from helpless babies,
to confused teenagers, then to manhood or womanhood. Last stage is
old age, grandchildren and finally the grim reaper. Why would we
question it? It is part of nature and part of life.
Science and Religious Beliefs can coexist. It is only those psuedo
intellectuals who say that they cannot. I am a Technical Person. My
source of livelihood is Technology. Yet, I find my religious faith
has calming effect in everyday life.Besides, there are still many
aspects in life and nature that we cannot explain. I saw miracles in
my own eyes. They work. I still cannot explain it.
July 8, 2009 at 1:01 am
Science has the same and equal authority with religion to teach as long as it deals with how nature works. Finding meaning about nature is not the business of science.
July 8, 2009 at 1:57 am
So which one is correct blackshama:
It rains because a deity was peeing on the earth? How professorial. LOL
July 8, 2009 at 1:10 pm
@bongV
if it were pee, it would be yellow! (acid rain?)
July 8, 2009 at 6:35 pm
it can be light, weak as puppy piss
July 8, 2009 at 9:15 am
The belief that everything has its ultimate cause is the most scientific of it all. “Nothingness” can not cause “anythingness” unless by an Omnipresent and Omnipotent Cause; nor lifelessness can cause life.
In my humble opinion, supposedly, there should be no contradictions between science and religion with respect to scientific knowledge and thought. Instead, scientific discoveries confirm religious revelations, but not vice versa. In the explanation of things, the only difference is that of inherent wisdom lodged in the religious viewpoint.
For example, as I may repeat, ask why ice floats upon water while both have the same basic properties? Both viewpoint would consistently explain the same line, i.e. water molecules when frozen turn lighter. But ask why it is so? “Secular” scientists then would say, “because it’s natural,” or that is its “nature.”
It would then be a query, if a natural law that governs matters and material processes really exists? If so, then who authored it and who makes it always mightily operational without interruption? Also, the “why it is so” will always be asked again and again, which in my opinion, science fails to answer.
Religious view affirms the same i.e. water molecules when frozen turn lighter, only that such natural phenomenon bears a noble wisdom behind it. Say, those giant icebergs floating on oceans are made to float to spare other lives beneath them that cannot withstand the coolest state. Their Creator i.e. God made them so in due consideration of the fact that not all living organisms beneath these icebergs can survive such a freezing condition which happened to inhabit those same places.
July 8, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Ice floats on water because it has a lower density. In college chemistry we learn that this is due to the crystalline structure of water as it loses heat. It is more than saying its natural but we have to come with a theory on how this is natural.
Of course anyone can say God wanted it that way. Since science doesn’t deal with explaining how God works (after all the five senses can’t detect God), we really can’t say how God does his/her business.
Finding meaning in nature is not the business of science. In fact science has no theory to explain beauty. This is where Darwinism stumbles.
July 9, 2009 at 1:07 am
hyden,
you are confusing the process of human growth development with the process of evolution.
July 8, 2009 at 10:30 am
One, I don’t believe you have to warn your students in UP that they get a 5 if they as much as try to answer a science exams by some religious explanation. It is a given. What subject was that?
Two, would it be correct to say that science professors in UP are having problems in teaching science to students? Perhaps, Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” could be instructive at some point?
July 8, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Actually it is more about proselytizing in class. BTW, I have read both Popper and Kuhn. I have to thank the Jesuits in Melbourne for that.
July 8, 2009 at 11:14 am
all in all, i think the results are pretty good, although it can be improved upon. go rizal tech!
July 8, 2009 at 1:22 pm
They just have to increase sample size.
July 8, 2009 at 1:26 pm
@BongV
I think you have abdicated your faculties of reason with yellow pee rain. Professor Ratzinger, the Don of Regensburg and now Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Church won’t have any of that and will give you a big fat F. He has skewered liberals, moral relativists and Islamic fundamentalists over that kind of reasoning.
July 8, 2009 at 6:17 pm
blackshama:
am not the one believing in imaginary friends – look who’s talking about abdicating faculties of reason
July 8, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Pope Benedict XVI in Caritas in Veritate deals with economics, science,technology and globalization. He writes
“Entranced by an exclusive reliance on technology, reason without faith is doomed to flounder in an illusion of its own omnipotence. Faith without reason risks being cut off from everyday life.”
Fundamentalism is the latter and Scientism is the former. Since in both cases reason is abdicated, it fools us into experiencing “heaven” when it is really a hell of our own making.
July 8, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I could never rationalize the rules of organized churches being such a constraint on the unlimited and barely tapped power of the human mind. Such a gift, so poorly used, this mind of ours. It ought to be nurtured by organized churches and applied to rationalize how the bible, or tomes of other faiths, as stories or allegory or even truth do not stand in opposition to the mind’s fantastic ability to learn new things.
The scientist should say to organized religion: “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” For instance, most scientists, I would dare guess, favor a human population that is not birthing itself into dire need or even oblivion.
I believe spirituality and the mind (science) are not incompatible, but the (human) rules of most churches are incompatible with greater enlightenment.
Universities should be able to teach whatever the mind can concoct, in a proper context of non-indoctrination and with respect for kindness.
Joe