#1: It was shocking that someone could live well into their adult years without knowing the leading theory of their origins. I believe they should be kept separate, and that simply learning about it shouldn't be an affront to their Faith. This censorship is damaging as it detaches the writer from learning about life's fascinating history. We know religious knowledge systems are applicable to scenarios such as these, but in this context, we think belief, rather than knowledge is employed. This is because evolution was omitted entirely from the curriculum. Natural sciences Discussing with different people, I often find that something is discredited by being labelled a theory, even though scientific theories are backed up through natural sciences through experiment. Therefore, we considered whether science should be questioned as well for knowledge question. Ethics Through our defined ethical code, we believe this type of misleading is objectionable. However, we recognise the same may not hold for different individuals from other communities. We are limited by our areas of knowledge, as the real-life situation may be contextualised through other means, and therefore, different questions could relate to the real-life situation. Darwin's theory of evolution radically modified a fundamentally creationist western world. It offered an alternative to the established story of creation, as it challenged several aspects of religions account of humanity's origin (The book of Genesis, for instance). He began questioning the theological implications that spawned from his discovery, as he himself was an adamant believer that it was God who is responsible for all creation. Throughout his long sea voyage, he would continually reflect on his findings, seeding doubts on his Christian Faith. : "Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. Had he unquestioningly followed a Faith WOK, he would have never persisted in his theory and convinced a narrowminded scientific community to entertain the possibility that God may not have played a role in humanities origins, or at the very least in the way that is outlined in the contemporary biblical literature, for instance, "in the image and likeness of God." Therefore, foregoing Faith in favour of Reason leads to actual scientific progress. Counterclaim: It is possible to follow a Faith WOK and propagate scientific discovery. Gregor Mendel was a devout Christian scientist accredited with the title of Father of Genetics. He was deeply rooted in his Faith and fulfilled all his vows and obligations. He excelled as a Christian, his peers unanimously electing him abbot in 1866. Mendel not only lived this lifestyle but inspired countless others to adhere to their Faith through his many sermons. Mendel's discovery was made whilst he was working at the Augustinian Monastery, and would not have been possible without the support of the Christian order. Twenty-nine thousand crosses were necessary, requiring over 2 hectares of plots in greenhouses. These resources were allocated to Mendel because the Faith was an advocate of the scientific study of inheritance, and may have even inspired Mendel to pursue his research. This research would influence biology and billions of lives through its impact on the field of medicine. Therefore, through Faith, scientific discovery can be advanced. Overall, both Faith and Reason are valid WOKs when approaching scientific breakthroughs. In fact, they often influence and lend credit to each other. Mendel's Laws, formulated from his research at the Monastery, would revitalise interest and investigation into Darwin's theory of evolution. Therefore, Faith and Reason are not in conflict with one another, as they are means to the same end. The scientific method is independent of any WOKs (whilst borrowing some elements from the reasoning, it is its own process), and its conclusions are unequivocal, suggesting that the wok employed should not be used to discredit anyone's work. Only scientific evidence can disprove scientific theories, and the extent to which a scientific theory is more convincing should only be based on its merit. The failure to keep an open mind and rejecting something simply because it doesn't align with your own WOK is what is truly dangerous. Everything should be free to be questioned, as long as these questions are asked in the hopes of learning more, and not to attempt to compromise a WOK you disagree with. If it weren't for Reason, Darwin would have never been able to come up with his earth-shattering observations and challenge his contemporaries' outlook on nature itself. Faith was a hindrance here. And, equally, if it weren't for Faith, Mendel would have failed to create the discipline of genetics and revolutionalise his field. Here, Faith was solely responsible for this significant advancement. Reason and Faith are reconcilable the vast majority of the time, and the relations should remain harmonious for humanity's welfare. Through our developments from the central Knowledge Question and the miniconclusions reached, we arrive at our conclusion. The scientific method establishes absolute truth, as it takes into account new scientific evidence that is discovered or proven and leads to revisions in theories. This makes Reason a more objective WOK, although Faith is also just as beneficial in similar contexts as we have demonstrated. Faith is more fixed, meaning that its explanations about our world are retrospectively looked at with new knowledge. And we believe that both Faith and Reason WOK lead to scientific progress, but they should not interfere with education. Although from my perspectives as a knower, my conclusions are wellfounded, they are not without limitations. For example, the first part of our conclusion does not address the comfort that can be gained from Faith. Focusing solely on the scientific method can lead to a nihilistic outlook on life, where you believe that nothing has any meaning. In this case, Faith is more optimistic, as it makes you feel happier and closer to God (speaking for the Abrahamic Religions). Another limitation is that Faith isn't fixed in the way that there are many different interpretations, for example, in Christianity. And the credibility of science is lessened if alternatives with less scientific evidence can challenge it. This limitation, however, is limited by my biases as a knower, as someone with a strong religious background, for example, a fundamental creationist, would disagree and believe that educators should instil only a faith WOK so as not to challenge their beliefs. Faith WOK interfered with education in our RLS, which disagrees with our conclusions, as absolute truth was not established. Olga was misled and found this out as an adult. Therefore, our conclusion here would mean that she should be taught the scientific explanation, but in a way that it is presented as the most supported explanation, as we believe that a Reason WOK should be applied when teaching the scientific theory of evolution. If Faith did lead to the discovery, then the students should be taught about it for the background, as with Gregor Mendel. However, in the case of evolution, it was, in fact, the denouncing of Faith that lead Darwin to his findings. So in our real-life situation, the background shouldn't be taught as it would only serve to further the divide, whereas we have shown that both Faith and Reason can lead to progress. The knower in this situation was unable to choose their own WOK, as they simply weren't given the opportunity to by their school. We believe that they should be able to, so the schools must teach evolution to the children as it is vital in their critical thinking process, at the time and later on in life. Evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. Rejecting the evidence is rejecting the Reason WOK, therefore we come to the conclusion that she should have not been given this doubt at a young age, as we believe that this goes against the absolute truth established by Reason and Science. We can apply this to our personal real-life situation of the electron configuration of the atom which we learned at GCSE, as the scientific method's flexibility allowed us to know about the more developed model, which would not have been possible if one followed a Faith WOK, as there would be no proof that would lead to revisions, as we saw once we studied the model in IB chemistry. Real-life situation application: Father of Genetics and the Monastery If we applied our conclusion here (that Faith can also lead to advancement), and kept them separate, we may have never had the understanding of inheritance and genetics that we have today, thanks to Mendel and the Monastery's research, which was catalysed by their Faith WOK.
