GCSE (9 1) Religious Studies

Transcription

1 GCSE REFORM TOPIC EXPLORATION PACK Theme: Science and Religion Origins of Things (Christianity) February 2015 GCSE (9 1) Religious Studies

2 We will inform centres about any changes to the specification. We will also publish changes on our website. The latest version of our specification will always be the one on our website ( and this may differ from printed versions. Copyright 2015 OCR. All rights reserved. Copyright OCR retains the copyright on all its publications, including the specifications. However, registered centres for OCR are permitted to copy material from this specification booklet for their own internal use. Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations is a Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England. Registered company number Registered office: 1 Hills Road Cambridge CB1 2EU OCR is an exempt charity. This resource is an exemplar of the types of materials that will be provided to assist in the teaching of the new qualifications being developed for first teaching in It can be used to teach existing qualifications but may be updated in the future to reflect changes in the new qualifications. Please check the OCR website for updates and additional resources being released. We would welcome your feedback so please get in touch.

3 Contents Introduction... 4 Activity 1: Starting points... 5 Activity 2: Thinking about Science... 5 Activity 3: Spot the Difference... 7 Activity 4: Who says what?... 8 Activity 5: How well thought out? Activity 6: Research This activity offers an opportunity for English skills development. 3

4 Introduction Many people make the assumption that science and religion are opposites and that they will always conflict. For some this is a sign that religion is out-dated, and that it should give way to science; for others it means religion should become private, contained within its own sphere of concern and avoiding any trespass into areas which belong in the domain of science. A reflective study of this area should challenge this view, since the conflict only exists for a small percentage of individuals with a very particular understanding of what religion is. For many there is no conflict, either because they understand religion differently or because the areas that tend to produce the most vocal responses are just not particularly important to them. Scientific discoveries can be correct without threatening an individual s understanding of or personal relationship with God and religion can be meaningful and useful without being empirically verifiable by the scientific method. It is useful to know about absolutist and irreconcilable views, but it is also useful and more challenging, to consider alternatives different forms of knowledge, different ways of things being true and different approaches to what religion is and is for. It is also interesting to spend some time thinking about what science actually is; the word itself means knowledge and in the modern world we tend to use it very generically to describe anything which we think has been proven to be true. We tend to accept what scientists tell us as proof, even in relation to qualitative or inductive work and the general attitude once science has spoken is that the issue is a closed one which would be news to many scientists still working in these closed areas. It can be argued that the attitudes of the average lay-person towards science are as accepting, dogmatic and unquestioning as those of a religious fundamentalist. This is the antithesis of what science should be, since well-designed scientific investigation is always open to questioning itself, including the possibility that previous theory or data is. 4

5 Activity 1: Starting points Find out how students initially regard the relationship between science and religion with the Agree/Disagree stimulus statements. Students should make a choice about each statement, True, False or It s Complicated. Use these to stimulate discussion with a walk the room exercise to find out the majority views in the class or an on the spot where student is picked and has one minute to explain why it s complicated about a particular statement, before choosing the next student to be on the spot. Just because creation stories aren t true it doesn t mean religion is useless The existence of God is still an open question Religion is about more than evidence Scientific discoveries make no difference to religious truths There is no need for science and religion to encounter one another Science will never find God Science works with evidence, religion with belief Religion should stay out of the way of scientific exploration It has been proved that God doesn t exist All religious people reject science No one takes the Bible literally anyway Science helps people find God Activity 2: Thinking about Science Borrow a science textbook, or utilise the student s knowledge from their science lessons and produce a summary of the scientific method something along the lines of An approach to asking and answering questions or investigating happenings, which relies on observation, measurement and experimental testing of ideas. Brainstorm to collect as many different kinds of measurement and scientific observation the students are familiar with to create as complete a picture as possible. Then ask them to think about whether there is anything this approach and these methods would find difficult to deal with; for example could one design an experiment to test whether someone is your friend, or to find out 5

6 whether they love you, is it possible to measure how beautiful or enjoyable something is and can science tell us how to make the right choice in a moral dilemma. Different classes will reach different conclusions on this, and the discussions which arise are useful in understanding how people reconcile or oppose scientific and religious views. Some students will feel very strongly that science is the best method for discovering things about the world we live in, but that things like human emotion are too personal or too complex to be studied that way; others might argue that if science cannot address it then it is illusory or pointless to study and still others may consider science to be dangerous if we don t temper it with things like ethical thinking, and compassion. Questions of Origins The area most cited when making the case for an inevitable clash between religion and science is the issue of the origins of the world, or more broadly the universe and the origins of the human race. Religious views are often presented as being based in scripture, and scientific ones in evidence. People sometimes make these claims without thinking about the nature of the evidence and sometimes the nature of scientific evidence can be hard to grasp for a non-scientist. This kind of complexity is sometimes contrasted with scriptural accounts presented as a simplistic approach to the unknown for people without access to or knowledge of science. There are religious people who would agree with that view. Christian Scripture on the Origins of Things Scriptural accounts of the beginning of things are found in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. The word genesis comes from the Greek word for origin or creation. Genesis says that God created the world, over a period of days. It does not specify creation ex nihilo (from nothing) although many philosophers have interpreted it in that way. However the first verse of Genesis says not that there was nothing at all but that the earth was formless and desolate and covered with a raging ocean (Genesis 1:1). From this point God creates light and darkness (First day), sky (second day), earth and sea and plants of all kinds (third day), the sun, moon and stars (fourth day), birds, fish and other aquatic creatures (fifth day), land animals of all kinds and human beings to be like Godself (sixth day). The seventh day was a day of rest for God from all the hard work of creation. However Genesis 2 gives a slightly different account of creation, beginning with the creation of a man (Adam) in an earth with no plants in it. Adam is created from soil first, and given the breath of life, then God planted the garden and then created animals also from soil and gave them to Adam to name. The final part of creation is the woman (Eve), made not from soil but from one of Adam s ribs. 6

7 The two accounts are quite different; in the first humanity are the last creation. Man and woman are made together, and there seems to be no difference in the process of their creation. It is also specified that they are to be like God, or in God s image. The second account places the creation of man first, before even the plants which are to feed him. The method by which he was made is specified and it is the same way as other animals except that Adam receives the breath of life, often understood to mean a soul. Woman however is created last, and differently and there is no explicit mention of the breath of life in relation to her. No time-scale is specified for the second story, while the first one is clearly divided into days. Activity 3: Spot the Difference Give half the students the text of Genesis 1 and half the text of Genesis 2; ask them to create a set of bullet points (you can give them a number of points) summarising the events of creation according to that text. Ask them to include what seems to have already existed when God began work, what things were made, in what order and how they were made (they can note not specified if no method is given) and any specific instructions or intentions expressed by God during the process. When they have their bullet points match them up with someone who looked at the other Genesis verse so they can summarise the two stories for each other. Make a class list of the differences they have spotted, and ask them for their reactions to the fact that there are actually two different stories. Understanding Scriptural Accounts It is possible to read religious scripture, including the Bible, literally. Unlike some other religious texts the Bible does not claim itself to be the literal word of God, and the history of it s compilation is generally well known to Christians. However there are Biblical literalists who regard the text of the Bible in this way and this can mean one of two things; it could mean that people see the Bible as a literal, historic, factual account which describes exactly how things happened and this is what most people mean when they talk about literalist attitudes to scripture. Literalists of this kind are also sometimes described as fundamentalist. However literalist can also mean that someone views the Bible as God s own words, which cannot be changed but which were not necessarily intended to give a factual description of real events. So it is possible to view the Bible as the literal word of God but the Genesis story as an allegorical or mythical account, rather than an historical event. 7

8 Of course there are also people who do not take a literalist view of the Bible at all; they might see it as words inspired by God, to communicate important truths in different ways, or as accounts written by people who were present at different historical events just recording how they saw them. If they know the history of the Bible they might point out the different beliefs or intentions of individual writers, or the passage of time between events being described and the earliest known written accounts of those events. They might see the Bible as a source of principles and ideas, but as also containing a lot of things which were relevant when they were written but which are not now. All these different views might be called liberal views or you could consider them on a scale from conservative (God-inspired and so true) to liberal (no direct connection with God at all). It is these different attitudes which inform the different Christian views on scientific discoveries and theories about the origins of things. Activity 4: Who says what? The table below gives a number of different attitudes towards questions of origins. Ask students to decide whether they might come from a liberal or a literalist reading of the Bible stories. We should not question the word of God There are true things in there, and there are things which are metaphors or whatever. And there are things which are wrong. We have to work out which! Testable scientific data is not the only kind of truth God could have planted false evidence in the world, when it was made, to see if we would be tempted to turn away from the faith we ought to have Scientists don t agree with one another and they admit there are things they don t know; so there could be some truths in the Bible Once you understand science you realise the Bible is just stories Once you have accepted the truth of God you realise that science doesn t matter It would be stupid to deny hard evidence, but the scientific evidence can t tell the whole story, you need other sources as well 8

9 Science on the Origins of Things There are a number of different theories about the origins of the universe, but the most widely accepted one today is the Big Bang Theory. This is the idea that before anything else was here there was a singularity, a concentrated package of matter and energy sometimes this is described as a cloud of gases which is inaccurate but easier to picture! For some reason, which is not clear, that package expanded very suddenly, in a hot explosion that released the matter and energy outwards. Other forces such as gravity were then able to act on the matter to shape it into stars, and stars created new forces and other new forms of matter. Evidence for this theory is found in the measurement of movement of galaxies we know that the universe is still expanding outwards and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which is constant everywhere and can only currently be explained by the Big Bang theory. While the Big Bang is generally agreed upon there are a variety of different theories as to whether this was a single and unique event or one in a series and whether the universe will continue to expand indefinitely or eventually begin to shrink again. Big Bang theory does not yet explain what caused the initial explosion or what things were like before then. Neither does it address the origins of life. The beginning of life on earth is a contentious issue; there is general agreement that it happened around 3,500 million years ago, that the first life forms would have been very simple molecules that could reproduce themselves perhaps and on the conditions that would have been required for them to develop in but there is not yet a definite answer to explain how something can change from being inert matter to living matter. Some people believe that bacteria of some sort arrived on earth from outer space, perhaps on a meteorite and others believe that it must have developed somehow from the conditions here. However it began scientists now generally agree that it developed into all its current forms through a process of natural selection or evolution. In this process creatures with the best characteristics for survival are most likely to reproduce, passing the genetic information for their successful adaptation onto their offspring. It is also possible, rarely, for genes to mutate and create a new adaptation that is even more successful. The theory of evolution is based on careful observation of animal populations today and study of the fossil record; because it is such a slow and gradual process it is not possible to directly observe it in action or to test it empirically as discoveries in other branches of science can be tested. However most scientists agree that even if there are gaps in our knowledge of how some things developed evolution is the theory that best explains what can be observed about life on earth. 9

10 So Where s the Problem? People who see science and religion as wholly in opposition can be found on both the pro-science ad pro-religion sides of the argument. Those who see science as right might make the following arguments: Scientific theories show that things can just happen on their own without the need for a God to guide them If creation doesn t need a God to happen, and life can develop on its own then there is plenty of evidence against God existing at all There is evidence for evolution and the Big Bang and no evidence that Genesis is true Genesis implies things haven t changed since they were created and we know that is not the case Genesis describes things as happening in a very short time-frame when we know evolution takes millions of years Human beings cannot be in the image of God, as the Bible says, if they evolved gradually over time People with a fundamentalist or literalist view of scripture reject these arguments simply because they contradict what is said in the Bible; if the Bible is a true and factual document everything else must be false. They might view science as deliberate testing of their faith, or simply as not very important in their lives. Other people consider that to be an indefensible position in the face of evidence and they seek to reconcile their belief in God as a creator with the scientific evidence. They might argue that: The Big Bang theory still leaves room for God to start things off Science might simply be discovering the methods which God used in the process of creation There is nothing in Genesis to fix the days of creation at the 24 hour periods we associate with the term day now The presence of two conflicting stories in Genesis shows that they are not meant to be literal truths The image of God does not have to refer to physical appearance but could be a reference to the soul or to developmental or spiritual potential The processes discovered by science are actually more complex and wonderful than the rather mechanical modelling processes described by Genesis so these discoveries enhance God s greatness rather than detract from it 10

11 There is no reason to assume that creation was finished at the end of the Genesis account, it does not say that; if the process of creation is continual and ongoing then evolution and the idea of an expanding universe are wholly compatible with this God is more than a creator; the issue of creation is not as important as how we live our lives now Activity 5: How well thought out? Summarise each of the arguments given above on individual cards or slips of paper and ask students to rank them from the best point to the worst point. Use this as a framework for a critical piece of writing on whether science has disproved the existence of God Science and Religion in Action There many individuals in the history of science who have pursued both serious scientific work and religious life. It is not necessary to fully understand the science, but their lives and work clearly demonstrate the modern science and religion are not incompatible. Georges Lemaître was one of the first scientists to propose a Big Bang type theory of the origins of the universe; he called it the hypothesis of the primeval atom or his cosmic egg theory; he was also the first person to theorise that the universe was still expanding outwards from this explosion an idea that Einstein initially rejected. Lemaître was also a Catholic Priest. Gregor Mendel ( ) was a monk whose work with pea-plants gave us the foundations of our understanding of heredity (the inheritance of physical characteristics) identifying what he called recessive and dominant traits and the ways in which they could be passed on. This is what we now call genetics - it was Mendel s work which first demonstrated that the information in a gene may not be acted on if another trait is dominant, or stronger, but the weaker or recessive trait can still be passed on to offspring. Max Planck ( ) won the 1918 Nobel Prize for physics with his quantum theory. This revolutionary theory completely changed understandings of atomic and sub-atomic reality. Planck was a member of the Lutheran church and his religion was important to him; among the work for which he is known is his lecture in 1937 on Religion und Naturwissenschaft (Religion and the Natural Sciences) in which he suggested that God is everywhere, and that atheists are confused by the rituals and symbols of religion, mistaking them for the reality of God. 11

12 Albert Einstein ( ) is claimed by both sides of this debate. He is probably the best known scientist of modern times, having revolutionised Newtonian physics with his theory of relativity. As a young man he reportedly said his interest in science sprang from a desire to know how God had created the universe, but he also did not believe in a personal God, telling a Rabbi in 1929, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind" i. He did not apply a particular religious label to himself (although he was born to Jewish parents he did not practice that religion), and he was critical of those who regarded scripture as the word of God. Thus you can find him both on lists of scientists who believed in God ( and on lists of famous atheists ( Activity 6: Research Ask students to find out about some people working today with strong views on religion and science; you could give them names like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, John Polkinghorne and Alistair McGrath or just give them a general instruction. They should return ready to talk for two minutes about the views of the person they have found out about. i Katz M and Epstein N, (2007) - accessed

13 We d like to know your view on the resources we produce. By clicking on the Like or Dislike button you can help us to ensure that our resources work for you. When the template pops up please add additional comments if you wish and then just click Send. Thank you. If you do not currently offer this OCR qualification but would like to do so, please complete the Expression of Interest Form which can be found here: OCR Resources: the small print OCR s resources are provided to support the teaching of OCR specifications, but in no way constitute an endorsed teaching method that is required by the Board and the decision to use them lies with the individual teacher. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the content, OCR cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions within these resources. We update our resources on a regular basis, so please check the OCR website to ensure you have the most up to date version. OCR This resource may be freely copied and distributed, as long as the OCR logo and this message remain intact and OCR is acknowledged as the originator of this work. OCR acknowledges the use of the following content: Thumbs up and down: alex_white/shutterstock.com Please get in touch if you want to discuss the accessibility of resources we offer to support delivery of our qualifications: resources.feedback@ocr.org.uk

14 ocr.org.uk/gcsereform OCR customer contact centre General qualifications Telephone Facsimile For staff training purposes and as part of our quality assurance programme your call may be recorded or monitored. OCR 2015 Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations is a Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England. Registered office 1 Hills Road, Cambridge CB1 2EU. Registered company number OCR is an exempt charity.