An evidence-based rethinking of the religion-science conflict

Nicholas C. DiDonato

Study group

All too often, people assume that Christians don’t know or don’t want to know science because science conflicts with their beliefs: Christianity acts as a force for science illiteracy. However, research by sociologist John Evans (University of California, San Diego) suggests otherwise. His findings conclude that (1) Christians know just as much science as the non-religious; (2) conservative Christians favor their religious beliefs over science when the two “conflict” but, from their perspective, the two in fact are not in conflict; and (3) conservative Protestants oppose scientists’ influence in political issues when the scientists disagree with their moral values.

Evans argues that one must distinguish among Christian groups and try to pinpoint the source of conflict with science. He divides Christians into Protestants and Catholics, and further subdivides Protestants into mainline, fundamentalist, and evangelical. According to Evans, mainline Protestants accept Enlightenment-style rationality, fundamentalists interpret every word of the Bible as literally true, and evangelicals reject the Enlightenment’s theory of rationality but also reject a strict literal interpretation of the Bible. The term “conservative Protestant” includes evangelicals and fundamentalists. Evans speculates that Catholics make an interesting case because although the Catholic Church accepts evolution, a time lag exists between intellectual acceptance at the high levels and popular acceptance at the level of the average Catholic.

As for pinpointing the source of the religion-science conflict for American Christians, Evans considers three hypotheses. First, he tests the popular theory that because religion and science have different methods for knowing about the natural world, religious people will trust their religious method and thus have no need for science (or they fear the conclusions the scientific method might bring). He predicts that this hostility to the pursuit of scientific knowledge (compared to the non-religious) will occur…but only for fundamentalists. Second, Evans hypothesizes that conservative Protestants and Catholics, as compared to the non-religious, will express less belief in scientific claims only when science conflicts with alternative religious claims. Third, religion and science may conflict at the level of moral values rather than knowledge, and so Evans theorizes that, compared to the non-religious, conservative Protestants and Catholics will be more opposed to scientists influencing moral issues than non-moral issues.

To test his three hypotheses, Evans relies on data from the 2006 General Social Survey (GSS), specifically its special subsection on science. He controls for demographic variables that would affect a person’s exposure to science (education, gender, age, income, etc.). Participants must answer a variety of scientific quiz questions, some that have a Christian (depending on one’s Christianity) alternative (e.g., human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals) and some that do not (e.g., “electrons are smaller than atoms”). The survey also tested the participants’ knowledge of the scientific method, especially the importance of empirical observation, and checked for basic science literacy (e.g., what do the results of a scientific study mean? What does a one-in-four chance mean?). Participants also self-evaluated their scientific knowledge and indicated how many college-level science courses they had enrolled in. Finally, Evans focused on three issues to test moral motivations for distrusting science: global warming, stem cell research, and genetically modified foods (the last one acts as a control since Americans typically do not see it as a moral issue).

The results provided quite a surprise: not only did all Christian groups have as much scientific knowledge as the non-religious but mainline Protestants knew more about science than the non-religious. It also turned out that evangelicals had taken more science classes than the non-religious (and no Christian group took less). Since fundamentalists exhibit no scientific illiteracy compared to the non-religious, Evans rejects the first hypothesis. Christianity, not even in its fundamentalist form, does not correlate with scientific illiteracy. However, all Christian groups except non-conservative Catholics disagreed with scientific conclusions when they conflicted with their religious beliefs, and conservative Protestants, but not Catholics, opposed scientists’ influence in the moral issues of global warming and stem cell research (as expected, none opposed scientific influence in genetically modified foods).

From these results, Evans concludes that the assumption that Christians, including fundamentalists, are scientifically illiterate, will scientific ignorance upon themselves, or avoid science is simply unsubstantiated. Most Christians do try to work around scientific conclusions that don’t fit their beliefs (not that there’s conflict from the Christian’s perspective because they believe that, in time, science will agree with their religion), and conservative Protestants do have a problem with scientists interfering with moral issues, but none of this stems from scientific illiteracy (quite the opposite, in fact, for the mainline and evangelical Protestants). Those who would refuse this evidence-based study and insist that Christians really are scientifically illiterate should remember that Christians aren’t the only ones capable of disregarding scientific findings they don’t like.

For more, see “Epistemological and Moral Conflict Between Religion and Science” in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

America’s public ritual gone terribly wrong
Does Eben Alexander “prove heaven?” Sort of.
Michael Shermer thinks he’s more moral than you
How separate are science and religion, anyway?
  • unkleE

    Again, my hearty thanks on making this information more readily available. This is very helpful in understanding (and in hopefully refuting some mistaken ideas). I just wish we had the same information for Australia and UK – there is a GSS in Australia, but I don’t recall seeing anyone analyse the data in this way.

    I don’t suppose there could have been any unwitting bias in the data? That survey is pretty large (4510 in 2006) and I presume representative, but it would have been nice to have seen a second year analysed as a replicate.

    But most interesting, thanks again.

  • B-Lar

    Knowledge of scientific advancements and approving of technological acheivements is one thing, but the scientific method, an evidence based method by which we get closer to the truth, is something quite different.

    To progress toward the truth in science, it is vital to follow the facts even when they lead away from your preferred conclusion. bias, and presupposition must be suspended. Unsurprisingly, the religious groups were unable to let go of their biases (remember, faithful obedience is a virtue! The Devil put that evidence there!) and this is the key point from this blog post. To the faithful, THEIR truth is more important than THE truth.

    To reiterate: Science is about more than technology and data. It is about finding out what is really true.

  • connorwood

    Here’s a challenge for you, B-Lar: Go out and find a representative sample of 100 religious Americans, of all religions (to match the proportions found in the populace at large, there should be roughly 30 evangelical Christians, 15 mainline Protestants, a handful of Muslims, etc.). Find out what percentage of the entire sample actually believes that scientific evidence was planted by the Devil. If that number exceeds 15 (out of 100), I will personally write a blog post acknowledging it.

  • JoAnne Simson

    Fascinating blog post and study! The authors looked at “scientific literacy,” but I don’t see where they had any criteria for an actual “practicing scientist.” As a retired “practicing scientist,” I have known a great many other practicing scientists, and VERY few of them were fundamentalists (two I can name, and one of those was a mathematician). Many scientists attend church of some denomination, often for the sake of the family, and have reconciled or else compartmentalized their scientific understandings and religious teachings. The discussion of religion rarely comes up in discussions among scientists.
    My view is that religion has an emotional underpinning (right brain) whereas science requires primarily rational (left-brain) activity. Both are necessary for a fully-rounded personality. I have written on the Science/Religion “conflict” in a book entitled: “The God that Says I AM: A Scientist’s Meditations on the Nature of Spiritual Experience.” It’s available in paperback or Kindle edition through Amazon at:
    It received a very positive Kirkus Indie review. If anyone out there buys and reads it, I would greatly appreciate feedback.

  • Ted Seeber

    “Knowledge of scientific advancements and approving of technological acheivements is one thing, but the scientific method, an evidence based method by which we get closer to the truth, is something quite different.”

    Yes. It is practically identical to the theological methods used by Catholics and mainline Protestants. It should because the scientific method came from those theological methods, which in and of themselves came from Greek, Roman, and Hebrew philosophy.

    We stand on the shoulders of giants. It takes a pretty myopic, evidence limiting view to think otherwise.