Sociologists, and social scientists more broadly, bring something unique to understanding the relationship between religion and science. We are interested in group behaviors. Sociologists, in particular, are interested in how groups influence individuals and how groups can bring about change within society. One way we study this is by listening to people’s life stories and analyzing how those stories reflect the groups individuals are part of. Sociological data also allows us to move beyond the loud, combative voices that drive public debate and gain a more nuanced and accurate picture of what people think, value, and believe. Sociology does not have the same tools as philosophy or theology; it cannot tell us how to live. But suppose we know how we want our communities, religious organizations, or laboratories to differ. In that case, sociology can help us understand group cultures and engage in practices that help us effect change.

When examining science and religion, sociology provides a key insight. Science and religion are not just sets of ideas or thought systems—although they are indeed these things. Science and religion are communities of people—communities like “laboratories,” “churches,” “universities,” and “denominations.” And some people are part of both communities. If we are going to continue to advance research on the interface between religion and science, we need to start by listening better to several key voices.
 

At least in the US, those outside the Christian traditions are not represented in large numbers in publicly accessible US survey research. This does not mean, however, that concerns about morality are any less salient among Muslims, Jews, and Hindus, for example. In addition, by limiting analysis to dominant religious groups, we risk overlooking critical ways in which increasing religious diversity in the US (and what are often majority traditions outside the US, like Islam) may complicate the relationship between science and religion, and how new and different moral concerns among religious minorities may contribute to broader public debates.

This trend is changing nationally (Wuthnow 2005) and is certainly not true globally. Take, for example, the national and global growth of the Muslim community. Muslims comprise only 1.1 percent of the US population, increasing from 2.35 million to 3.45 million between 2007 and 2017. In addition, projections indicate that by 2040, Muslims will replace Jews as the second-largest religious group in the nation, and by 2050, the percentage of Muslims will double to 2.1 percent of the total US population (Pew Research Center 2017). Further, recent estimates suggest that there are approximately 2 billion Muslims globally, making Islam the second largest religion in the world after Christianity (Zurlo Johnson and Crossing 2025). Such religious diversity further underscores the need for more research on the religion-science debate in the US and globally (Ecklund et al. 2016).

Debates about evolution are being increasingly observed and examined across the Muslim world (Ecklund et al. 2019; Hameed 2008), with a significant percentage of residents in Muslim-majority countries such as Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Egypt rejecting Darwinian evolution. However, this reticence to embrace evolution largely derives from the social and cultural threat many perceive the theory presents to Islam via its association with atheism, rather than theological differences that emerge from the Qur’an. In addition, moral attitudes around in-vitro fertilization (IVF) among Sunni and Shi’a Muslims across different global regions exemplify the salience of moral concerns, but different moral concerns than those expressed by conservative Protestants in the US (Inhorn 2006). The nature of these moral debates may vary significantly by faith tradition and regional context. In addition, examining conflict between religion and science outside of the US can afford more insight into whether the moral conflict that Evans theorizes is unique to the US or extends to other parts of the world. Non-Western contexts (such as India) (Gosling 2007) have experienced very different trajectories of scientific development because of their advancement outside of Enlightenment-era thinking.

That said, in the US, work suggests that some Muslims and Jews also perceive conflict between religion and science (Vaidyanathan et al. 2016). However, many religious minorities reject notions of conflict and perceive the religion-science debate that persists in the US as distant from their own spiritual beliefs and expressions. 
This notion of synergy or coexistence between Islam and science was echoed by a Muslim religion professor, who linked this absence of conflict directly with the Qur'an. As he explained:

The Qur'an was not a written text… It was an inspired speech, okay? So… because of that, that inspired nature of the text, it's really not very detailed and substantial, you know, as a prose will be… The Qur'an is open to many interpretations. So if you feel that there is a conflict, we immediately interpret the text and say that we will not take it literally, eliminating the conflict between the two [religion and science].

The openness that this sacred text afforded to allow “many interpretations” facilitated distance from conflict. This notion of "flexibility" was also shared by some Jewish respondents. For example, as a Jewish geology student [2] explained:

[W]hen you get to the core of science and religion, there isn't much of a conflict. However, it does depend on what religion… Christianity is basically a cheap knockoff of Judaism… The vast majority of Christian philosophy is on taking what it says literally… [T] The Torah has flexibility on a lot of different things, such as being able to say and find leniencies for certain things under certain circumstances and to accept different interpretations of how the world works.

Here, the respondent juxtaposes Judaism and Christianity by noting the latter’s propensity toward biblical literalism, thus suggesting that conflict with science is related more to interpretation than the substance of the religious text itself. Some research (Chan and Ecklund 2016) indicates that literalism and “inflexibility” in interpretation of the Bible might not be as common as the respondent perceives; however, Christians across traditions rely on a number of boundary-making strategies to make sense of scientific claims in light of Biblical authority.

Meanwhile, members of religious minority traditions may ascribe to certain attitudes about science (i.e. not perceiving conflict) as a source of boundary-making to differentiate from more mainstream debates around science and religion (Ecklund, Park, and Sorrell 2011). As Vaidyanathan et al. (2016, 492) explain “despite their theological differences, adherents of Judaism and Islam clearly shared an expressed desire to distance themselves from the conflict narrative in this study by distancing themselves from anti-science views they perceived as typical of mainstream conservative Christians.” In this way, “science is an area where those outside Christian traditions draw out their differences with Christianity.” Thus, we argue that this boundary-work represents a kind of moral stance about the religion-science debate in the US, such that members of some minority religious traditions – for whom this debate may be experienced differently from a theological standpoint – still interface with this moral conflict in the public sphere and feel compelled to respond to this tension by distancing themselves from it. Taken together, these findings offer insights into how everyday Americans from different non-Christian traditions perceive and negotiate moral conflict around religion and science, which has implications for our understanding of the conditions that shape this moral conflict in the US more broadly.
 

For policymakers and the general public, our research has revealed how national ideologies and policies related to religion affect scientists’ work, and how this, in turn, might affect the way science is presented and implemented in their nations. Our research has also increased understanding of how the personal religious views of scientists can shape their practice, dissemination, and interpretation of science and how different religious groups might better relate to science and scientists. In sum, understanding the complex interplay between religion and science requires listening to diverse voices across communities, traditions, nations as well as staying attuned to new developments in science and the evolving religious landscapes. By moving beyond simplistic conflict narratives, we can better appreciate how faith and science coexist, shape identities, and influence societies worldwide. 

Elaine Howard Ecklund
Josiah Taru
Publiziert im Dezember 2025

Elaine Howard Ecklund is Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences, Professor of Sociology and Director of the Boniuk Institute for the Study and Advancement of Religious Tolerance. 

Josiah Taru is a postdoctoral fellow in the Boniuk Institute at Rice University.