Skip Navigation


Integrative and Comparative Biology Advance Access originally published online on June 21, 2008
Integrative and Comparative Biology 2008 48(2):202-212; doi:10.1093/icb/icn059
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
48/2/202    most recent
icn059v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kondrick, L. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Thomism and science education: history informs a modern debate

Linda C. Kondrick1
Department of Physical Science, School of Physical and Life Science, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR 72801, USA

Correspondence: 1E-mail: lkondrick{at}atu.edu

There is no debate over the Theory of Evolution. Among biologists the Theory of Evolution is a settled principle. Yet, the issue is far from settled in the larger context of society; between sectors of lay society and biological scientists in the United States there is evidence of a deep divide. Faith and reason, religion, and science at odds—that is hardly a recent divide. It is the premise of the author that the origin of the current conflict over the teaching of evolution stems from a fundamental philosophical divide that began long before Darwin first proposed his Theory of Evolution. It predates the inclusion of physical and biological sciences in the curriculum of western universities. It is older than either Islam or Christianity. The conflict goes back to Plato's Academy in 385 BC where the schools of Idealism and Realism first emerged as two distinct philosophical systems. Idealism and Realism diverged over essential issues of philosophy: What are we, what is true, and how do we know? Answers to these questions about the natural order are framed within philosophical constructs, themselves based upon essential assumptions about the essence of being, the essence of truth, and the nature of learning. Idealism and Realism developed independently for over 1500 years into two competing schools: the Augustinians (fundamentally Idealists) and the Latin Averroists (fundamentally Realists). It was over the place of natural philosophy in the curriculum that these two competing schools collided violently at the University of Paris in 1252. It was Thomas Aquinas who brokered a ceasefire between two embattled schools. Aquinas forged a philosophical system, called Thomism, that allowed the two schools to agree to disagree to the extent that in the graduate curriculum of the University Natural Philosophy could be taught apart from theology. This separation of secular or natural philosophy from theology opened the way for the development of the empirical sciences, the effects of which are evident today. All but forgotten, however, is that Thomism provided a system for resolving the disparities between these two separate ways of knowing, not by compartmentalizing them into separate domains, but by proving the domains to be philosophically complementary, creating a holistic framework in which to reconcile apparent conflicts between theology (religion) and natural philosophy (science). The essence of this historic compromise and its implications for the teaching of the Theory of Evolution form the core of this article.


From the symposium "Evolution vs. Creationism in the Classroom: Evolving Student Attitudes" presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, January 2–6, 2008, at San Antonio, Texas.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.