Challenges Faced by Faith-Based Schools with Special Reference to the Interplay Between Science and Religion

  • Michael PooleEmail author


Faith-based schools should encourage a spirit of enquiry into their core beliefs and how these relate to wider society, on the assumption that if the beliefs are true, they will withstand detailed inspection. Outside the boundaries of the faith-based school, however, there is a different ethos, and students may spend much time in that environment. Secular and humanist groupings have little sympathy with such schools and public support is mixed. After making some general points about world views, this chapter looks at the challenges faced by faith-based schools, with particular reference to the English scene. Science is often cited as the main reason for rejecting religion and faith-based schools. Suggestions are therefore offered to such schools concerning their role and responses to current debates concerning science and religion in society and its institutions.


Ayer Creation Creationism Darwin Dawkins Design/Intelligent design Evidence Evolution Explanation Faith Fallacy of reification Fallacy of the excluded middle Freedom Language Laws Logical positivism Miracles New atheism Presuppositions Proof Reductionism Relativism Truth World views 


  1. Association for Science Education. (1981). 6 Aims for science education, No.4. Hatfield: ASE.Google Scholar
  2. Ayer, A. J. (1974). Language, truth and logic (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Bacon, F. (1625 first published). Essays or counsels, I. Of truth. Works VI, 377–379. Accessed 29 June 2012.
  4. Bartholomew, D. J. (2008). God, chance and purpose: Can God have it both ways? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry, R. J. (Ed.). (2012). The lion handbook of science & Christianity. Oxford: Lion Hudson.Google Scholar
  6. Black, P., & Poole, M. W. (2007). Science education and the Christian teacher. (G. Grace (series Ed. Professional focus series. No. 8). London: Centre for Research and Development in Catholic Education (CRDCE).Google Scholar
  7. Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and religion: Some historical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brooke, J. H. (2001). The Wilberforce-Huxley debate: Why did it happen? Science and Christian Belief, 13(2), 127–141.Google Scholar
  9. Brooke, J. H., & Cantor, G. (1998). The contemporary relevance of the Galileo Affair. In Reconstructing nature: The engagement of science and religion. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
  10. Carroll, L. (1962). Through the looking glass. London: The Folio Society.Google Scholar
  11. Crick, F. (1994). The astonishing hypothesis. London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  12. Danielson, D. R. (2001). The great Copernican Cliché. American Journal of Physics, 69(10), 1029ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, C. F. (1999). The evidential force of religious experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Dawkins, R. (1992, April 20). A scientist’s case against God – An edited version of Dr Dawkins’ speech at the Edinburgh International Science Festival on 15 April 1992 (p. 17) The Independent.Google Scholar
  17. Dawkins, R. (1995). A reply to Poole. Science and Christian Belief, 7(1), 45–50.Google Scholar
  18. Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. London: Bantam Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dennett, D. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  20. Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (DFEE/QCA). (2006). Science: The national curriculum for England (p. 37). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  21. Feser, E. (2010). The early Wittgenstein on scientism, Tuesday, June 1, 2010. Accessed 20 June 2012.
  22. Flew, A. (1979). A dictionary of philosophy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Gribbin, J. (1986, April 25). In the beginning, perhaps there was God (p. 16). The Guardian. Google Scholar
  24. Halstead, J. M. (2012). Faith schools. In L. P. Barnes (Ed.), Debates in religious education (p. 103f). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hanson, N. R. (1962). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science (p. 7). London: Scientific Book Guild.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, S. (2004). The end of faith: Religion, terrorism and the future of reason. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  27. Hesse, M. B. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Hull, J. (1974). Sense and nonsense about God. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
  30. Humphreys, C. J. (1991). The star of Bethlehem. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 32, 389–407; reprinted in Science and Christian belief. 5(2), 83–101 (1993).Google Scholar
  31. Humphreys, C. J. (2004). The miracles of exodus. San Francisco: Harper.Google Scholar
  32. Humphreys, C. J. (2011). The mystery of the last supper. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Humphreys, C. J., & Waddington, W. G. (1983). Dating the crucifixion. Nature, 306(5945), 743–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. James, F. A. J. L. (2005). An ‘open clash between science and the Church’?: Wilberforce, Huxley and Hooker on Darwin at the British Association, Oxford, 1860. In Science and beliefs: From natural philosophy to natural science, 1700–1900 (pp. 171–193). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  35. Lewis, C. S. (1947). Miracles. London: Bles.Google Scholar
  36. Lewis, C. S. (1949). Transposition and other addresses. London: Bles.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis, C. S. (1979). The laws of nature. In God in the dock (pp. 51–55). Glasgow: Collins.Google Scholar
  38. Livingstone, D. N. (1987). Darwin’s forgotten defenders. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press/Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  39. Needham, J. (1969). The grand titration. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  40. Poole, M. W. (1987). Creation or evolution – A false antithesis? (Latimer studies, Vol. 23/24). Oxford: Latimer House.Google Scholar
  41. Poole, M. W. (1994). A critique of aspects of the philosophy and theology of Richard Dawkins’. Science and Christian Belief, 6(1), 41–59.Google Scholar
  42. Poole, M. W. (1995a). A response to Dawkins. Science and Christian Belief, 7(1), 51–58.Google Scholar
  43. Poole, M. W. (1995b). Beliefs and values in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Poole, M. W. (2002). Explaining or explaining away? – The concept of explanation in the science-theology debate. Science and Christian Belief, 14(2), 123–142.Google Scholar
  45. Poole, M. W. (2007). User’s guide to science and belief. Oxford: Lion Hudson.Google Scholar
  46. Poole, M. W. (2009). The ‘New’ atheism: Ten arguments that don’t hold water? Oxford: Lion Hudson.Google Scholar
  47. Ray, J. (1717). Wisdom of god manifested in the works of creation (7th ed.). London: Innys.Google Scholar
  48. Russell, B. (1970–1972). Religion and science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Trigg, R. (2012). Equality, freedom, & religion. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Van Till, H. J. (1996). Basil, Augustine, and the doctrine of creation’s functional integrity. Science and Christian Belief, 8(1), 21–38.Google Scholar
  51. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 6.371/2 (C. K. Ogden, Trans.). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Accessed 13 Sept 2012.
  52. Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans., 3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education and Professional StudiesKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations