DOCSLIB.ORG

Scientific Reasoning Skills Development in the Introductory Biology Courses for Undergraduates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Scientific Reasoning Skills Development in the Introductory Biology Courses for Undergraduates SCIENTIFIC REASONING SKILLS DEVELOPMENT IN THE INTRODUCTORY BIOLOGY COURSES FOR UNDERGRADUATES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Melissa S. Schen, M.S. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee Approved by Professor Anita Roychoudhury, Co-Advisor ______________________________ Co-Advisor Professor Arthur L. White, Co-Advisor ______________________________ Professor David Haury Co -Advisor Graduate Program in Education Copyright by Melissa S. Schen 2007 ABSTRACT Scientific reasoning is a skill of critical importance to those students who seek to become professional scientists. Yet, there is little research on the development of such reasoning in science majors. In addition, scientific reasoning is often investigated as two separate entities: hypothetico-deductive reasoning and argumentation, even though these skills may be linked. With regard to argumentation, most investigations look at its use in discussing socioscientific issues, not in analyzing scientific data. As scientists often use the same argumentation skills to develop and support conclusions, this avenue needs to be investigated. This study seeks to address these issues and establish a baseline of both hypothetico-deductive reasoning and argumentation of scientific data of biology majors through their engagement in introductory biology coursework. This descriptive study investigated the development of undergraduates’ scientific reasoning skills by assessing them multiple times throughout a two-quarter introductory biology course sequence for majors. Participants were assessed at the beginning of the first quarter, end of the first quarter, and end of the second quarter. A split-half version of the revised Lawson Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR) and a paper and pencil argumentation instrument developed for this study were utilized to assess student hypothetico-deductive reasoning and argumentation skills, respectively. To identify ii factors that may influence scientific reasoning development, demographic information regarding age, gender, science coursework completed, and future plans was collected. Evidence for course emphasis on scientific reasoning was found in lecture notes, assignments, and laboratory exercises. This study did not find any trends of improvement in the students’ hypothetico- deductive reasoning or argumentation skills either during the first quarter or over both quarters. Specific difficulties in the control of variables and direct hypothetico-deductive reasoning were found through analysis of the LCTSR data. Students were also found to have trouble identifying and rebutting counterarguments, compared to generating initial arguments from scientific data sets. Although no overall improvement was found, a moderate, positive relationship was detected between LCTSR and argumentation scores at each administration, affirming the predicted association. Lastly, no difference was determined between biology majors and other students also enrolled in the courses. Overall, the results found here are similar to those classified in the literature for both hypothetico-deductive reasoning and argumentation, indicating that biology majors may be similar to other populations studied. Also, as no explicit attention was paid to scientific reasoning skills in the two courses, these findings complement those that illustrate a need for direct attention to foster the development of these skills. These results suggest the need to develop direct and explicit methods in order to improve the scientific reasoning skills of future biological scientists early in their undergraduate years. iii DEDICATION Dedicated to my grandfather iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my co-advisor, Arthur White, for his steady support, patient editing, and sharing the plethora of his statistical knowledge. I am also grateful to my co-advisor, Anita Roychoudhury, for her constant encouragement and guidance - modeling both good teaching and good research. I want to thank David Haury for his continuous support and guidance as a committee member, teacher, and section head. I would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Introductory Biology Program, especially Judy Ridgway, John Cogan, and Amy Kovach for their support of this research and providing access to the students. I am also thankful for the logistical support provided by Rosemarie Thornton and the teaching assistants. Without their patience and help, it would have been impossible to collect data. I also wish to thank the students who participated in this study, particularly those students who completed the instruments in all three administrations. Lastly, I thank my friends and family for their love and support through this journey. I am especially grateful for Denny, Scott, Kristi, Tim, and Helen Schen, as well as Jessica Auman, Cynthia Bill, and Rhiannon Light. v VITA March 15, 1976 .....................Born – Canton, Ohio 1998......................................B.A. Biology, Case Western Reserve University 2000......................................M.S. Biology, Case Western Reserve University 2000 – 2003 ..........................Lecturer, Case Western Reserve University 2006 – 2007 ..........................Adjunct Instructor, Columbus State Community College FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education Minor Field: Research Methods vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract...........................................................................................................................ii Dedication......................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgments...........................................................................................................v Vita ................................................................................................................................vi List of tables....................................................................................................................x List of figures...............................................................................................................xiii Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................1 Background and setting .............................................................................................1 The call................................................................................................................1 Scientific reasoning overview ..............................................................................4 Scientific reasoning in education..........................................................................5 Scientific reasoning in college biology.................................................................7 Statement of problem.................................................................................................9 Research questions ..................................................................................................11 Definition of terms ..................................................................................................12 Argumentation (dialogic)...................................................................................12 Constitutive definition....................................................................................12 Operational definition ....................................................................................12 Deductive reasoning ..........................................................................................12 Constitutive definition....................................................................................12 Operational definition ....................................................................................12 Inductive reasoning............................................................................................13 Constitutive definition....................................................................................13 Operational definition ....................................................................................13 Hypothetico-deductive reasoning.......................................................................13 Constitutive definition....................................................................................13 Operational definition ....................................................................................13 Scientific reasoning............................................................................................13 Constitutive definition....................................................................................13 Operational definition ....................................................................................13 vii Chapter 2: Literature Review.........................................................................................15 Scientific reasoning................................................................................................15 Deductive aspects of science..............................................................................16 The philosophy of Karl Popper. .....................................................................16 Deduction and hypothetico-deductive reasoning. ...........................................18 Inductive aspects of science ...............................................................................20
Load more

Recommended publications
  • There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning
    There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning 1. Empiricism and the Question of Empirical Reasons Empiricism may be defined as the view there is no a priori justification for any synthetic claim. Critics object that empiricism cannot account for all the kinds of knowledge we seem to possess, such as moral knowledge, metaphysical knowledge, mathematical knowledge, and modal knowledge.1 In some cases, empiricists try to account for these types of knowledge; in other cases, they shrug off the objections, happily concluding, for example, that there is no moral knowledge, or that there is no metaphysical knowledge.2 But empiricism cannot shrug off just any type of knowledge; to be minimally plausible, empiricism must, for example, at least be able to account for paradigm instances of empirical knowledge, including especially scientific knowledge. Empirical knowledge can be divided into three categories: (a) knowledge by direct observation; (b) knowledge that is deductively inferred from observations; and (c) knowledge that is non-deductively inferred from observations, including knowledge arrived at by induction and inference to the best explanation. Category (c) includes all scientific knowledge. This category is of particular import to empiricists, many of whom take scientific knowledge as a sort of paradigm for knowledge in general; indeed, this forms a central source of motivation for empiricism.3 Thus, if there is any kind of knowledge that empiricists need to be able to account for, it is knowledge of type (c). I use the term “empirical reasoning” to refer to the reasoning involved in acquiring this type of knowledge – that is, to any instance of reasoning in which (i) the premises are justified directly by observation, (ii) the reasoning is non- deductive, and (iii) the reasoning provides adequate justification for the conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law and the Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence of Intent
    The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Volume 1 Issue 2 Article 4 1999 The Law and the Brain: Judging Scientific videnceE of Intent Erica Beecher-Monas Edgar Garcia-Rill Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess Part of the Evidence Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Erica Beecher-Monas and Edgar Garcia-Rill, The Law and the Brain: Judging Scientific videnceE of Intent, 1 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 243 (1999). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess/vol1/iss2/4 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process by an authorized administrator of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LAW AND THE BRAIN: JUDGING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF INTENT Erica Beecher-Monas* and Edgar Garcia-Rill, Ph.D.** INTRODUCTION As evidentiary gatekeepers, judges must be ready to evaluate expert testimony about science and the brain. A wide variety of cases present issues of mental state, many doubtless with battling experts seeking to testify on these issues. This poses a dilemma for nonspecialist judges. How is a nonscientist to judge scientific evidence? How can a nonscientist decide if testimony about mental state meets the criteria of good science? This essay offers a general overview of the issue of evaluating scientific evidence and is aimed at exploring the issues involved, but not attempting easy answers. Of necessity, this requires thinking about how science works.
    [Show full text]
  • Achievements and Fallacies in Hume's Account of Infinite
    -1- ACHIEVEMENTS AND FALLACIES IN HUME’S ACCOUNT OF INFINITE DIVISIBILITY James Franklin Hume Studies 20 (1994): 85-101 Throughout history,almost all mathematicians, physicists and philosophers have been of the opinion that space and time are infinitely divisible. That is, it is usually believedthat space and time do not consist of atoms, but that anypiece of space and time of non-zero size, howeversmall, can itself be divided into still smaller parts. This assumption is included in geometry,asinEuclid, and also in the Euclidean and non- Euclidean geometries used in modern physics. Of the fewwho have denied that space and time are infinitely divisible, the most notable are the ancient atomists, and Berkeleyand Hume. All of these assert not only that space and time might be atomic, but that theymust be. Infinite divisibility is, theysay, impossible on purely conceptual grounds. In the hundred years or so before Hume’s Tr eatise, there were occasional treatments of the matter,in places such as the Port Royal Logic, and Isaac Barrow’smathematical lectures of the 1660’s, 1 Theydonot add anything substantial to medievaltreatments of the same topic. 2 Mathematicians certainly did not take seriously the possibility that space and time might be atomic; Pascal, for example, instances the Chevalier de Me´re´’s belief in atomic space as proof of his total incompetence in mathematics. 3 The problem acquired amore philosophical cast when Bayle, in his Dictionary, tried to showthat both the assertion and the denial of the infinite divisibility of space led to contradictions; the problem thus appears as a general challenge to "Reason".
    [Show full text]
  • THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD and the LAW by Bemvam L
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 19 | Issue 1 Article 7 1-1967 The cS ientific ethoM d and the Law Bernard L. Diamond Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bernard L. Diamond, The Scientific etM hod and the Law, 19 Hastings L.J. 179 (1967). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol19/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND THE LAW By BEmVAm L. DIivmN* WHEN I was an adolescent, one of the major influences which determined my choice of medicine as a career was a fascinating book entitled Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine. This huge volume, originally published in 1897, is a museum of pictures and lurid de- scriptions of human monstrosities and abnormalities of all kinds, many with sexual overtones of a kind which would especially appeal to a morbid adolescent. I never thought, at the time I first read this book, that some day, I too, would be an anomaly and curiosity of medicine. But indeed I am, for I stand before you here as a most curious and anomalous individual: a physician, psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and (I hope) a scientist, who also happens to be a professor of law. But I am not a lawyer, nor in any way trained in the law; hence, the anomaly. The curious question is, of course, why should a non-lawyer physician and scientist, like myself, be on the faculty of a reputable law school.
    [Show full text]
  • Contrastive Empiricism
    Elliott Sober Contrastive Empiricism I Despite what Hegel may have said, syntheses have not been very successful in philosophical theorizing. Typically, what happens when you combine a thesis and an antithesis is that you get a mishmash, or maybe just a contradiction. For example, in the philosophy of mathematics, formalism says that mathematical truths are true in virtue of the way we manipulate symbols. Mathematical Platonism, on the other hand, holds that mathematical statements are made true by abstract objects that exist outside of space and time. What would a synthesis of these positions look like? Marks on paper are one thing, Platonic forms an­ other. Compromise may be a good idea in politics, but it looks like a bad one in philosophy. With some trepidation, I propose in this paper to go against this sound advice. Realism and empiricism have always been contradictory tendencies in the philos­ ophy of science. The view I will sketch is a synthesis, which I call Contrastive Empiricism. Realism and empiricism are incompatible, so a synthesis that merely conjoined them would be a contradiction. Rather, I propose to isolate important elements in each and show that they combine harmoniously. I will leave behind what I regard as confusions and excesses. The result, I hope, will be neither con­ tradiction nor mishmash. II Empiricism is fundamentally a thesis about experience. It has two parts. First, there is the idea that experience is necessary. Second, there is the thesis that ex­ perience suffices. Necessary and sufficient for what? Usually this blank is filled in with something like: knowledge of the world outside the mind.
    [Show full text]
  • “Junk Science”: the Criminal Cases
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 1993 “Junk Science”: The Criminal Cases Paul C. Giannelli Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Evidence Commons, and the Litigation Commons Repository Citation Giannelli, Paul C., "“Junk Science”: The Criminal Cases" (1993). Faculty Publications. 393. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/393 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/93/8401-0105 THE jouRNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 84, No. I Copyright© 1993 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. "JUNK SCIENCE": THE CRIMINAL CASES PAUL C. GIANNELLI* l. INTRODUCTION Currently, the role of expert witnesses in civil trials is under vigorous attack. "Expert testimony is becoming an embarrassment to the law of evidence," notes one commentator. 1 Articles like those entitled "Experts up to here"2 and "The Case Against Expert Wit­ nesses"3 appear in Forbes and Fortune. Terms such as "junk science," "litigation medicine," "fringe science," and "frontier science" are in vogue.4 Physicians complain that "[l]egal cases can now be de­ cided on the type of evidence that the scientific community rejected decades ago."5 A. THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE The expert testimony provisions of the Federal Rules of Evi­ dence are the focal point of criticism.
    [Show full text]
  • "What Is Evidence?" a Philosophical Perspective
    "WHAT IS EVIDENCE?" A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE PRESENTATION SUMMARY NATIONAL COLLABORATING CENTRES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH 2007 SUMMER INSTITUTE "MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL" BADDECK, NOVA SCOTIA, AUGUST 20-23 2007 Preliminary version—for discussion "WHAT IS EVIDENCE?" A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE PRESENTATION SUMMARY NATIONAL COLLABORATING CENTRES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH 2007 SUMMER INSTITUTE "MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL" BADDECK, NOVA SCOTIA, AUGUST 20-23 2007 NATIONAL COLLABORATING CENTRE FOR HEALTHY PUBLIC POLICY JANUARY 2010 SPEAKER Daniel Weinstock Research Centre on Ethics, University of Montréal EDITOR Marianne Jacques National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy LAYOUT Madalina Burtan National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy DATE January 2010 The aim of the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy (NCCHPP) is to increase the use of knowledge about healthy public policy within the public health community through the development, transfer and exchange of knowledge. The NCCHPP is part of a Canadian network of six centres financed by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Located across Canada, each Collaborating Centre specializes in a specific area, but all share a common mandate to promote knowledge synthesis, transfer and exchange. The production of this document was made possible through financial support from the Public Health Agency of Canada and funding from the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy (NCCHPP). The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Public Health Agency of Canada. This document is available in electronic format (PDF) on the web site of the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy at www.ncchpp.ca. La version française est disponible sur le site Internet du CCNPPS au www.ccnpps.ca.
    [Show full text]
  • The Epistemology of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy of Science Would Not Make for Good Philosophy of Evidence
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1997 The Epistemology of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy of Science Would Not Make for Good Philosophy of Evidence Brian Leiter Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brian Leiter, "The Epistemology of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy of Science Would Not Make for Good Philosophy of Evidence," 1997 Brigham Young University Law Review 803 (1997). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Epistemology of Admissibility: Why Even Good Philosophy of Science Would Not Make for Good Philosophy of Evidence Brian Leiter* I. INTRODUCTION In its 1923 decision in Frye v. United States,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia set out what was, for seventy years, the most influential test for the admissi- bility of scientific evidence in federal court. In Frye, the question was whether the results of a lie detector test were admissible on behalf of the defense. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that such evidence was inadmissible, famously holding, that scientific evidence "must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it be- longs."2 In 1993, the United States Supreme Court ended Frye's reign of influence with its decision in Daubert v.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.A REASSESSMENT of PRAGMATISM in BEHAVIOR
    Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta ISSN: 0185-4534 [email protected] Sociedad Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta México Freitas Carneiro Leão, Monalisa de Fátima; Alves da Rocha, César Antonio; Laurenti, Carolina A REASSESSMENT OF PRAGMATISM IN BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS: I. THE THEORY OF TRUTH Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, vol. 42, núm. 1, junio, 2016, pp. 87-104 Sociedad Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta Distrito Federal, México Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=59346496006 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta • Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis 2016 | Núm. 1 • junio | No. 1 • june | Vol. 42, 87 - 104 A REASSESSMENT OF PRAGMATISM IN BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS: I. THE THEORY OF TRUTH UNA REEVALUACIÓN DEL PRAGMATISMO EN EL ANÁLISIS DE LA CONDUCTA: I. LA TEORÍA DE LA VERDAD Monalisa de Fátima Freitas Carneiro Leão, César Antonio Alves da Rocha, and Carolina Laurenti Universidade Federal do Pará, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Universidade Estadual de Maringá Abstract Radical behaviorism is often said to be inspired by pragmatism. Similarities be- tween these two philosophies generally center on epistemological issues. For in- stance, the pragmatic theory of truth as effectiveness would be shared by behavior analysts. But because pragmatism is a philosophy built precisely by the gathering of components derived from previously existing philosophical traditions, it can- not be reduced to just one of these components alone without running the risk of mischaracterization.
    [Show full text]
  • Causality in Medicine and Its Relationship with the Role of Statistics (UPDATED 2020)
    Prime Archives in Biomedical Sciences Book Chapter Causality in Medicine and Its Relationship with the Role of Statistics (UPDATED 2020) Antonio Monleon-Getino1,3* and Jaume Canela-Soler2 1Section of Statistics, Departament of Genetics, Microbiology and Statistics, Faculty of Biology, Univeristy of Barcelona, Spain 2Department of Clinical Foundations, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Spain 3Group of Researh in Bioestatistics and Bioinformatics (GRBIO), Spain *Corresponding Author: Antonio Monleon-Getino, Section of Statistics, Departament of Genetics, Microbiology and Statistics, Faculty of Biology, Univeristy of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Published April 13, 2020 This Book Chapter is a republication of an article published by Antonio Monleon-Getino and Jaume Canela-Soler at Biomedical Statistics and Informatics in June 2017. (Antonio Monleon- Getino, Jaume Canela-Soler. Causality in Medicine and Its Relationship with the Role of Statistics. Biomedical Statistics and Informatics. Vol. 2, No. 2, 2017, pp. 61-68. doi: 10.11648/j.bsi.20170202.14) How to cite this book chapter: Antonio Monleon-Getino, Jaume Canela-Soler. Causality in Medicine and Its Relationship with the Role of Statistics (UPDATED 2020). In: Prime Archives in Biomedical Sciences. Hyderabad, India: Vide Leaf. 2020. © The Author(s) 2020. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which 1 www.videleaf.com Prime Archives in Biomedical Sciences permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract The general goal of this work is the clarification of the use of concepts of causality in medicine and its relationship with the role of statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • PHILOSOPHY of RELIGION Selected Readings Second Edition IQ:Pl
    PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Selected Readings Second Edition IQ:Pl Edited by MICHAEL PETERSON Asbury College WILLIAM HASKER Huntington College BRUCE REICHENBACH Augsburg College DAVID BASINGER Roberts Wesleyan College New York Oxford OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2001 416 Miracles the event but whether nature was in fact the sole c I . question. ausa agent m the case in DAVID HUME The Evidence for Finally, many philosophical discussions revolve around th Miracles Is Weak whetherh hthe undisputed. occurrence of certa·1n un usua I events coulde question . of onest, t .oughtful individuals to acknowledge that G d h require all This selection contains a classic and influential argument against belief in mir- m ea:thly affairs. Some maintain that in- acles crafted by David Hume (1711-1776). The wise person, Hume informs us, healmgs or resurrections) would force all to '.e:g., as- Other philosophers argue that althou h belief . g.e d1vin.e .in- will always proportion his or her belief to the evidence. He goes on to say that may at times be acceptable for those al read .direct d1v1ne our belief in the relevant laws of nature are based on uniform, public, past ex- exists, no single event or series of events could ever com I y el1:ve that God perience, which provides a great amount of objective evidence, while the evi- to assent to the existence of a perfectly good people dence supporting alleged violations of these laws consists solely of personal tes- ample, the tremendous amount of horrific evil in th Id . agent. For ex- timonies that cannot be substantiated by independent testing.
    [Show full text]
  • Miracles, Science, Or Both?
    Digital Collections @ Dordt Student Work 11-2014 Miracles, Science, or Both? Deborah Tyokighir Dordt College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/student_work Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Tyokighir, D. (2014). Miracles, Science, or Both?. Retrieved from https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/ student_work/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Work by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tyokighir 1 Deborah Tyokighir Miracles, Science, or Both? KSP 291 for Dr. J. Ploegstra BIO 310: Advanced Microbiology presented at Seminar, November 24, 2014 submitted November 22, 2014 Abstract What is a miracle? What is science? Do miracles cease to be exciting when a scientific explanation is found? Does an event, explainable by science, undermine the power of the Divine? This work investigates the tension that we have created between divine action and natural law, using the medieval Eucharist experience and related scientific findings as an example of this tension. Tyokighir 2 Science, Miracles, or Both? What is a miracle? Consider the following frequently-used definitions: “a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency” (“Miracle”) or “an event which the forces of nature – including the natural powers of man – cannot of themselves produce, and which must, therefore, be referred to a supernatural agency” (Fisher).
    [Show full text]