Many individuals find that there is an irreconcilable conflict between their religious beliefs about special creation and the scientific view of a naturalistic evolution over billions of years (Roth 2009). This idea that religion and science are irreconcilably different leads many students to become fearful of and resistant to teachings on evolution. While many studies have analyzed the spread of creationism and the dangers of creationism, few have offered concrete tactics of how teachers can deal with this emotional issue at a classroom level. Here I argue that in order to affect change at a classroom level, we must differentiate between creationism as a movement and the creationist student. Creationism as a movement must be fought with the fiercest of opposition, especially when attempts are made to remove evolution from the state standards or to replace it with ‘alternative theories’ such as intelligent design (Watts et al. 2016). At a classroom level, though, this type of fierce confrontation is likely to only enforce the creationist students’ fears of science and act as verification of their perceived conflict between science and their own faith. Thus, new tactics must be developed to be used in the classroom that take the students’ emotional state into consideration and the effect that negative emotional states have on a student’s ability to learn.

While I have spent numerous years analyzing why Americans, in general, and evangelical Americans, in particular, reject evolution—this article will now approach the problem from a different perspective. Instead of looking at why fundamentalist students reject evolution, I will inspect how and why certain religious groups, here Buddhists, in the US are apparently able to incorporate scientific data into their worldview without feeling the need to drop their spiritual beliefs and pursuits. The hope is that by understanding their receptivity to evolution light may be shed on a means by which we can better teach evolution, so our most religious of students are able to drop their fears of this central theory and that even our fundamentalist students can come to recognize (and loosen?) their own clinging to ideologies. Finding a means to relieve these fears and tendencies to cling is vital. So long as students remain fearful of evolution, they will be utterly unable to absorb or accept the data being presented to them.

The idea for this paper came after reading the results of a study conducted by the Pew Research Center regarding religious affiliation and acceptance of evolution. In their study they posed the question of whether or not participants believed that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth. Results from the study showed that Buddhists in America have the highest percentage of acceptance in the US at 81% (Fig. 1). This is in stark contrast to the overall low acceptance of evolution among Americans and in stark contrast to the promoters of creationism and intelligent design, who not only reject the theory of evolution but actively campaign to have it downplayed in schools. As Konstantinos Alexakos, Kenneth Tobin and Michael Reiss have all stated, creationism is a major threat to science education due to (1) its inherently anti-scientific nature that hinders human progress, (2) its connection to political systems that promote racism, homophobia, etc. (3) the means by which teachers are fearfully avoiding the subject of evolution in the classroom due to opposition, thus preventing masses of other students from receiving proper lessons on this central tenet of modern science (Alexakos 2009; Tobin 2008).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The Pew Report showing the percent of adherents of various religions who accept evolution as the best explanation for human origins

Full size image

Unfortunately, the solution is not easy or straightforward as David Long writes, “…deeply understanding rejection of evolution, and how to work with it, is a complex, socio-historical story” (2012, p. 29) and we must therefore be aware that creationists will not be persuaded through the simple presentation of geological and biological arguments as their views are deeply entrenched in their personal and group identity as well as their belief in a link between evolution and amorality (Long 2011). The role of religion in a student’s ability and willingness to accept the theory of evolution is a topic that has gained an increasing amount of attention during the past two decades as it has become ever clearer that “student learning does not occur in a vacuum or on a blank slate; students’ cultural backgrounds and beliefs are an essential factor in the learning process overall and in shaping one’s understanding of science (methodology, theories, results, facts), in particular” (Guessoum 2018, 315). The importance of this subject was highlighted by the special edition of Cultural Studies of Science Education devoted solely to the topic of science and religion in 2010 with guest editor Wolff-Michael Roth, who has described the resistance that he received when he tried to publish a paper discussing the interaction of science and religion in the classroom in 1997 (Roth 1997) as it was rejected by at least two journals with the claim that the subject matter was “deemed too sensitive” (p. 163). In that special edition, multiple authors approached this “sensitive” issue. Elisabeth Settelmaier (2010) and Mark Seals (2010) both offered commentaries on David Long’s article, Scientists at Play in a Field of the Lord, in which he described the opening of the Creation Museum. In his review essay, Seals proposed teaching evolution through the ‘lens of empathy’ and also considers a ‘pupil centeredness’ approach. Most recently an entire chapter was devoted to this subject in 13 Questions. Reframing Education’s Conversation: Science, where Michael Reiss and Nidhal Guessoum offered Christian and Muslim perspectives on the question of “In what ways does religion affect the process of science education?” Here Reiss and Guessoum also highlighted the complexity of this topic, as Guessoum states, “God help those who teach biology, particularly evolution and genetics (mutations, etc.), at least in my part of the world…” (2018, p. 313) because

… in many cases, when they hear a professor insisting on natural explanations for some ‘sensitive’ issues (origin of life, origin of humans, etc.), students see it as an attempt to indoctrinate them with some particular ideology (materialism, mostly). Even if the teacher remains neutral and injects no particular ideological slant to the material, students who see larger implications to the topics being addressed (origin of the universe, evolution of life, etc.) will likely come out with the impression that science, remaining so disconnected from God, is inherently materialistic/atheistic, or at the very least representing a cold endeavor that has no interest in the concerns and aspirations of humans, both as individuals and as societies. (2018, p. 314)

This paper picks up where those publications left off by focusing on the problem from a new perspective, i.e., what can we learn from Buddhist traditions with regards to the perceived conflict between religion and science. In addition to providing possible classroom applications, this paper also provides a response to a central creationist fear-based claim that the naturalistic reasoning used in evolutionary theory to explain the origin of humans causes a loss of faith and a general degeneration of morals. By looking at how American Buddhists have been able to integrate scientific acceptance and an understanding of evolution into their own spiritual practice, we see the clear falsehood of these claims and highlight the true possibility of individuals being able to integrate both religious and scientific thought into their lives. Moreover, we find ways of incorporating compassion and tolerance into the classroom as put forth by Seals (2010).

American Buddhism

First it is necessary to delineate what is meant by American Buddhism and how this spiritual community differs from other Buddhist communities in other countries. First it is important to point out that there are differences between American and Asian Buddhist traditions, which exist not only due to various cultural milieus but also by the fact that Buddhism has a long and rich history in many Asian countries, while the spread of Buddhism among non-Asian Americans is still a relatively new phenomenon. While Buddhist teaching have been being taught throughout Asia for over two thousand years, American Buddhism on the other hand is argued to have entered mainstream American in the mid-twentieth century. Although Chinese and Japanese immigrants brought Buddhist traditions and beliefs with them to America in the 19th century, these remained largely contained within the immigrant communities. Now, though, as Buddhist teachings become easily accessible through periodicals such as Lion’s Roar and Tricycle, as free Dharma talk podcasts and the publication of thousands of books, there has been a proliferation of Buddhist centers and a rapid increase in center memberships across the country. At present there are more than 2000 Buddhist centers across America (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Credit: Dan Zigmond

Overview of Buddhist centers across America.

Full size image

Moreover, technology and science in general played a large role in American society before the introduction of Buddhism into the American mainstream, which is in stark contrast to other Asian Buddhist countries such as Tibet. As the current (14th) Dalai Lama has stated, Tibet has not had a long relationship or exposure to science and technology—meaning that there has not been a necessary dialogue between the two realms. To illustrate this point, the Dalai Lama explains how his own education growing up did not include any lessons on math, biology, geology, chemistry or physics and that he did not even know that these subjects existed as he was growing up. Furthermore, to illustrate the isolation from technology experienced in Tibet, he offers some examples from the life of the 13th Dalai Lama (Fig. 3) who had acquired three motorcars (two Baby Austins 1927 and an American Dodge 1931) during his brief sojourn to British India. Yet as there were no drivable roads through the Himalayas or Tibet, the cars had to be disassembled in India and transported in parts by mules, porters and donkeys back to Lhasa. These remained the only three cars in Tibet for a long period of time and fairly useless since there were no roads on which to drive them. During his own exile, the Dalai Lama said it became clear to him that the underlying causes for Tibet’s political tragedy had been its failure to be open to modernization (Lama 2005).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Credit: Getty Images

13th Dalai Lama Tubten Gyatso.

Full size image

American Buddhism on the other hand is argued to have entered mainstream American in the mid-twentieth century, a time and place already marked by scientific and technological advancement. While Chinese and Japanese immigrants brought Buddhist traditions and beliefs with them to America in the 19th century, these remained largely contained within the immigrant communities (Buddanet 2008). Yet after the initial introduction of Buddhism to America, Buddhism quickly began to increase in popularity and went from a marginal religion practiced primarily by Chinese and Japanese immigrants on the West Coast to a religion practiced by millions of Americans throughout the country and familiar to millions more through popular culture (Bielefeldt 2001). In fact, the number of Buddhist practitioners in the US has increased 15-fold since the 1960s and Buddhism is now the third largest religion in the United States after Christianity and Judaism (Hughes 2012). Currently it is approximated that over 1% of Americans consider themselves to be Buddhists and the percentage of non-Asian practitioners (67%) is now higher than the percentage of Asian adherents (33%), highlighting the fact that Buddhism has truly moved into mainstream America and is no longer limited to immigrant communities.

For this paper, I will concentrate on the Vipassana or Insight Meditation tradition as it is the fastest growing tradition among the various Buddhist meditative disciplines taught in the United States. Much of its popularity can be attributed to (1) the fact that the teachings and practices are offered independent of much of its traditional Theravada Buddhist religious context and (2) its autonomy, which has allowed the American vipassana teachers and students to adapt and present the practice in forms and language that are much more thoroughly Westernized than most other forms of Buddhism in America. The fast expansion of this tradition has brought about a virtual “vipassana movement” in the United States. Since the 1980s there has been an eruption of vipassana centers, teachers and publications. The American vipassana movement is based on the meditation systems developed and propagated by the Burmese monk and meditation teacher Mahasi Sayadaw (1904–1982). Many of the major vipassana teachers received their original training in Asia under these masters and then imported their teaching to America. Teachers involved in the popularization of vipassana include Joseph Goldstein, Tara Brach, Gil Fronsdal, Sharon Salzberg and Jack Kornfield. These teachers often studied under Asian teachers who were part of this twentieth-century modernization movement. When these American teachers brought the tradition to the US, they were free to package these ancient traditions in a form more accessible for American audiences and also began focusing on teaching to lay audiences. As Jack Kornfield, has said, “we wanted to offer the powerful practices of insight meditation, as many of our teachers did, as simply as possible without the complications of rituals, robes, chanting and the whole religious tradition” (Fronsdal 1998).

The teachings offered by these teachers are thus often very different from the teachings offered by their Asian counterparts. While Asian teachers often discuss these vipassana practices as a means of escaping endless rebirths, the American teachers focus on reducing the amount of suffering in our day-to-day lives. As this movement continues to make its way into mainstream America, non-Asian Americans are also more likely to refer to themselves as vipassana students than as followers of Theravada Buddhism (Fronsdal 1998).

The next section will take a detailed look at the Pew Report and show how Buddhists compare to other religious groups in the United States. While past articles have examined why Americans in general and evangelical Americans in particular reject evolution, I will examine how Buddhists in the US are apparently able to incorporate scientific data into their worldview while maintaining their spiritual beliefs and pursuits.

How do Buddhists compare to other members of religious affiliations in America?

First it should be stated that there are many sound arguments that state that Buddhism is not a religion but solely a spiritual practice and thus more related to yoga than Christianity, but because Buddhism is included in the Pew Report, I will also treat it and compare it to the other religious groups in terms of its religious nature, i.e., religious scripture reading, community, etc. The major reason why Buddhism is not considered a religion is that a belief in God is not a necessary part of the Buddhist practice, which is clearly seen in the Pew Reports as Buddhists report the lowest percent of adherents with a belief in God. Table 1 takes a look at various religious groups in terms of their understanding of evolution, their belief in God, the role of religion in their life, their relation to religious scriptures and their attendance at religious gatherings. Note here that while the overall trend of acceptance of evolution is the same as in Fig. 1, the numerical values differ due to the wording of the questions. Table 1 shows the percent of adherents who “believe that humans evolved naturally”, while Fig. 1 shows the results of adherents who “believe that evolution is the best explanation for origins of human life on earth”.

Table 1 Comparison of Pew Research Center data on religious groups
Full size table

The table is color-coded to assist in quicker recognition of patterns. The darker red (or darker grey in the print version) highlights the higher percentages with the highest percentage marked with a ↑. Conversely, the lighter red (lighter grey in print) highlights the lower percentages with the lowest percentage marked with a ↓. Looking at the comparative data available from the Pew Research Center (2014), it was possible to examine not only the acceptance of evolution among the various religious groups, but also to examine other key religious components such as belief (absolute or fairly certain) in God, role of religion in one’s life, frequency of participation in religious groups, etc. Before beginning, it is important to point out that the Pew data measured various Christian denominations separately instead of categorically Christian, as in the case of all other religions. This allows us to recognize the tremendous variability between different Christian groups and their views on evolution. As can be seen above, Christian groups differ in their acceptance of evolution from 31% among American Catholics to only 6% among American Jehovah’s Witnesses. The differences between these Christian denominations can be attributed to a complex mix of historical, cultural and organizational variables. For example, higher acceptance of evolution among Catholics is often attributed to the fact that Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor Pope John-Paul II have both acknowledged the strength of the theory of evolution, thus allowing Catholics to avoid any conflict between their belief system and scientific progress (Numbers 1998).

When looking at the entire Pew data set, a pattern quickly emerged showing that the groups with the highest amount of acceptance of evolution, namely Buddhists (67%), Hindus (62%) and Jews (58%) respectively, also had the lowest percentages when it came to belief in God, 58%, 75%, and 64% respectively, and reported far less frequently that religion played a major role in their life, 33%, 26% and 35% respectively. Conversely, the groups with the lowest amount of acceptance of evolution, namely Jehovah Witnesses (6%), Mormons (11%) and Evangelical Protestants (11%), reported the highest percentages regarding belief in God (together with the historically black Protestants)—all approximately 98%, and far greater amounts stating that religion played a major role in their life, Evangelicals (79%), Mormons (84%) and Jehovah Witnesses (90%).

In general, it was also seen that in these categories, the Buddhists, Hindus and Jews showed very different values than all of the other religious groups—showing a certain type of clustering. While the Buddhists, Hindus and Jews (Cluster A) all had over a 50% acceptance rate of evolution, all of the other religious groups (Cluster B) had an acceptance rate of lower than 31%. Moreover, while Cluster A reported less than 75% of absolute certainty in God, Cluster B all reported over 90%. A less striking, but still noticeable division was also seen in general between Cluster A and B regarding role of religion in their life with the groups in Cluster A all with 35% or lower and Cluster B with over 50%. A sub-group within Cluster B could be found for these categories showing that those groups which had less than 20% acceptance of evolution, also reported 97–98% certainty in the existence of God and 79–90% from this sub-group also reported that religion played a major role in their life.

However, this clear pattern and clustering did not hold true in the categories regarding the frequency of scripture reading, where the Buddhists reported that 28% read religious scriptures at least once a week, placing them closer to Mainline Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Moreover, when it came to attendance to religious meetings, the Buddhists and Jews reported similar percentages of members attending weekly meetings groups to the Catholics, Mainline Protestants and Orthodox Christians.

While it may not be surprising that those groups who have a lower acceptance of evolution also have a higher percentage of adherents who are certain about the existence of God and report that religion plays a large role in their life, it is interesting that Buddhists report a relatively high frequency of scripture reading and attendance. In fact, the percent of Buddhists who report that they read religious scriptures at least once a week is roughly equal to the amount of Catholics, Mainline Protestants and Orthodox Christians who read religious scripture weekly. This point is especially interesting as the number of Buddhist meeting opportunities in the United States is greatly fewer than the opportunities for Mainline Protestants or Catholics for example. Yet, while Buddhists are apparently spending the same amount of time reading scripture and attending religious meetings as their Christian peers, their acceptance of evolution is more than double—which lends the question: What is being taught at these meetings and in these scriptures that keeps members loyal to these religious groups, yet does not hinder them from accepting evolution as the most plausible reason for the origin of human evolution. The next section will propose reasons for why it is possible for Buddhists to integrate evolution into their worldview more easily than religious groups from Cluster B by examining Buddhist scriptures and how these scriptures are presented to American audiences.

The reasons behind American Buddhists’ ability to accommodate science into their spiritual practice

Here it is argued that the reasoning for American Buddhists’ ability to incorporate evolution into their spiritual worldview is four-fold: (1) international Buddhist teachers such as the Dalai Lama and American Buddhist teachers actively encourage the acceptance of science, even incorporating scientific data on evolution into their teachings, (2) evolution is inherently in line with the major teachings offered by the Buddha, (3) Buddhist teachings actively encourage adherents to let go of dogmatic teachings in order to accept reality as it is thus allowing them to better assimilate scientific teachings into their worldview and (4) the mindfulness practices exercised by many American Buddhists may offer them the tools to recognize when they are clinging to ideas and the ability to release themselves from these ideologies.

Buddhists teachers

Although the Dalai Lama is not an American Buddhist, he has a very high and respected standing among Americans in general, and is frequently referenced by American Buddhist teachers. As such, the Dalai Lama continues to be seen as the world expert of Buddhist teachings and he has used his position of authority to call for Buddhists around the world to take science seriously, and integrate fundamental theories like evolution into their worldview, stating “If as spiritual practitioners we ignore the discoveries of science, our practice is also impoverished, as this mind-set can lead to fundamentalism. This is one of the reasons why I encourage my Buddhist colleagues to undertake the study of science, so that its insights can be integrated into the Buddhist worldview” (Lama 2005, p. 13). The Dalai Lama actually goes so far to point out that since science, like Buddhism, uses critical investigation to understand the nature of reality, “if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims” (Lama 2005, p. 3). These types of statements are arguably the strongest defense of science made by any religious leader in recent times or possibly ever.

The Dalai Lama is not the only Buddhist teacher though, who actively emphasizes an incorporation of science into Buddhist thinking. Many other American Buddhist teachers bring science into their teachings, often referring to the scientific benefits of meditation, the plasticity of the neo-cortex and how these are affected by Buddhist practices. This type of amalgamation of spiritual practice and science is seen in individual vipassana teachers’ talks as well as in major Buddhist events such as the “Art & Science of Living with Presence & Connection” retreat at Spirit Rock in 2017, which was led by Jack Kornfield (Buddhist teacher and founder of the Insight Meditation Society) and Dan Siegel (clinical professor of psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine). The core focus of the event was to examine the neurobiology behind traditional Buddhist practices to enhance the function of these practices in the practitioners’ lives. Kornfield and Siegel have authored more than 30 books and have influenced millions of readers through their work.

Another Buddhist teacher who often incorporates science into her talks is Tara Brach, PhD. Brach is the founder of the Insight Meditation Community and blends psychotherapy theory and Eastern philosophy into her talks. Her talks are often comprised of the neurological reasons for certain emotional states and how these can be addressed using Buddhist practice. She often discusses the evolutionary causes for these neurological states and how meditation affects these states at a biological level. For example, in her talk “Seeking What’s True—Within Ourselves, Beyond Our Self, with Each Other (Part 1)”, she discusses the importance of recognizing that often times, we react out of unconscious needs and fears at the level of the reptilian brain. By recognizing that all people are experiencing the same basic impulses due to our common evolutionary past, it is easier to have self-compassion and compassion for the people we encounter. She states that by engaging in higher spiritual practices, such as mindfulness meditation, we can create changes to the neocortex, allowing us to react to our environment with more compassion through the insight into our deepest connection to one another. Thus, these teachers give their audiences a clear message that Buddhism and science, particularly evolutionary theory and biology are not at odds, but in fact support each other.

In addition, to emphasizing the parallels of science and Buddhist thought, another key point that defines the American Buddhist teacher is an emphasis on an anti-authoritarian and non-dogmatic approach to learning. Gil Fronsdal is the head of the Insight Meditation Center in Redwood City California and the Insight Meditation Retreat Center in Santa Cruz, California. All of his talks are available for free via the Audio Dharma podcasts and thus are accessible to listeners across the globe. Fronsdal often quotes teaching from the Suttas that remind practioners that they must become their own teachers and not rely on scriptures but instead use their own discrimination to make ethical life choices. In his 30 January 2018 broadcasted talk, Fronsdal quotes the Buddha’s speech from the Kaulama Sutra, which states that practitioners should not rely on oral practices, their faith in a teacher, etc. but instead they should rely on their own experiences to guide them in their own path to enlightenment. (Fronsdal openly acknowledges the irony of a teacher giving advice about not following the advice of a teacher, but again encourages participants to question this advice and experiment for themselves.)

Kaulama Sutra [4] It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. Translated from the Pali by Soma Thera (1994)

It would of course be wrong to claim that Buddhism is immune to fundamentalist thinking, as every belief system has the potential of being misused by individuals in search of power as exemplified by the situation in Myanmar (Burma), where the current regime is currently attempting to create a religious amalgamation of Buddhism and its totalitarian ideology (Skidmore 2005). Yet, this text from the Kaulama Sutra highlights how the Buddhist tradition is wildly different from other monotheistic traditions through its emphasis on questioning authority, experimenting, observing and making decisions based on these experiences. While other major religions, such as Christianity and Islam, emphasize a deferential relationship to a higher authority, whether it be the tenets put forth by God or the rules laid out by the religious leaders who have interpreted certain religious texts, Buddhism is arguably much more similar to science than it is to other religions because of its focus on discovery through observation and not an unquestionable devotion to an external authority. The next section will explore the similarities between Buddhist teachings and naturalist evolutionary theory.

Buddhist teachings and their parallels to evolution

Another reason why it might be easier naturally for Buddhists to accept evolution is that evolutionary theory coincides so well with the Buddhist teachings regarding the nature and reality of life on this planet. While Darwin may have shocked the Christian world with his ideas on a struggle for survival, this idea runs parallel to the Buddhist idea of “life is suffering”. This idea is echoed most clearly in the Four Noble Truths (Table 2). These noble truths represent the most basic and foundational teachings of the Buddha, as Thai monk Prayut stated, “Friends, the footprints of all land animals fit within the footprint of the elephant; the elephant’s footprint is said to be supreme in terms of size. Similarly, all the merits of the Dhamma can be found within the Four Noble Truths” (1995). This story was originally told in the Maha-hatthipadopama Sutta, and has thus been a part of the Buddhist tradition for thousands of years.

Table 2 The four noble truths from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
Full size table

The four noble truths can be summarized most simply by saying, ‘Life is difficult, wishing this to be otherwise will only cause additional suffering’. Buddhist principles do not deny that life is difficult, but proposes that we as thinking beings can reduce our own suffering in this difficult world by accepting it as it is—imperfect and impermanent. The Eightfold Path (Table 3) was taught as a means to achieve cessation of suffering. This idea has been explained using a biological approach on Buddhanet (a non-sectarian Buddhist online network),

… the instinct to seek food and eat it, the instinct to avoid danger, the instinct to procreate, and many others consist simply in the creature’s instinctive awareness of a belief in its own selfhood. Convinced first of all of its own selfhood, it will naturally desire to avoid death, to search for food and nourish its body, to seek safety, and to propagate the species. A belief in selfhood is, then, universally present in all living things. If it were not so, they could not continue to survive. At the same time, however, it is what causes suffering in the search for food and shelter, in the propagation of the species, or in any activity whatsoever. This is one reason why the Buddha taught that attachment to the self-idea is the root cause of all suffering. He summed it up very briefly by saying: ‘Things, if clung to, are suffering, or are a source of suffering.’ This attachment is the source and basis of life; at the same time it is the source and basis of suffering in all its forms. It was this very fact that the Buddha was referring to when he said that life is suffering; suffering is life (http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa7.htm—accessed 5 February 2018).

Table 3 Overview of the noble eightfold path
Full size table

Thus, it can be said that the story of “struggle for survival” echoes true as the Four Noble truths begin with the truth of suffering and the declaration to adherents that they will suffer less once they have accepted this truth. This idea of a difficult living condition is also reflected in the Dhammapada, where the three characteristics of existence are described and again the main point is that life is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not related to a particular self (Table 4).

Table 4 Three characteristics of existence according to the Dhammapada
Full size table

So here it is clear that while Darwin’s description of a “struggle for existence” is in major conflict with the idea of the Garden of Eden, it is clearly in line with Buddhist ideas about the nature of life and thus they may also make it easier for Buddhists to accept evolution. The next section though will look at other aspects of Buddhist teachings that also may account for the high percentage of acceptance among Buddhists.

The anti-dogmatic nature of Buddhist scriptures

In looking at the Dhammapada another key point arises. As Fronsdal pointed out in a 2017 Audio Dharma talk, you can tell a lot about a religion by looking at the way that the religious texts begin. If we look at the first page of the Bible, we find Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (King James Version, p. 1). When we look at the opening chapter of the Koran we find: “In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful: All Praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Universe, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Owner of the Day of Judgement. You alone do we worship, and You alone we turn to for help, Guide us to the straight path… (English translation by Surah Al-Fatiha). Both of these religious texts, which form the basis of three world religions, begin with the declaration of the presence of God. This is in stark contrast to the Dhammapada, which is considered the most succinct Buddhist teaching in the entire Pali Canon and the chief spiritual testament of early Buddhism according to Bhikkhu Bodhi (1985). The first lines of the first chapter of the Dhammapada read: “All experience is preceded by the mind, led by mind, made by mind. Speak or act with a corrupted mind, and suffering follows as a wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox. All experience is preceded by mind, led by mind, made by mind. Speak or act with a peaceful mind, and happiness follows like a never-departing shadow” (Fronsdal 2011, p. 1). As Fronsdal points out, the way a religious text begins tells us a lot about the focus of the particular religion and Buddhism here places a clear emphasis on a person’s own mind and their personal control over their experience here on earth which is independent from the whims of an overseeing God.

In general Buddhist scriptures and teachers continue to promote this anti-authoritarian, anti-dogmatic approach to understanding one’s self and the world in which we live. While other religions emphasize the importance of faith in their God, Buddhism discourages blind faith—even in the Buddha. The most extreme version of this teaching is seen in a famous Buddhist koan from Zen Master Linji. The koan, which admittedly is often misunderstood, highlights the necessity of self-guided discovery. The koan in its simplest of forms states, “If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha”. While this koan often causes some misgivings in practitioners, who are taken aback by the violent nature of the statement, the meaning behind the statement is central to Buddhist thinking. Linji in his statement points to the fact that practitioners should not be seeking their source of knowledge from an external source or teacher; any time that they are following a teacher blindly, believing to have found an enlightened being, they are to do away with act of seeking enlightenment through external means and again focus on themselves and their own experiences.

Moreover, the scriptures clearly discuss the importance of not clinging to certain opinions, ideology or even a particular sense of self. The fierce clinging to many of these points is the likely cause why many people have religious objections to evolution, because evolution does in fact call certain ideas into question, namely ideas like: special creation, personal relationship to God and eternal life. The Buddhists from the very beginning, though, are explicitly told not to cling to any of these ideas and not to engage in any kind of ideology, nor idolatry—not even of the Buddha. In fact, this idea of clinging (grasping) and its direct causal relationship to suffering is central to Buddhism. As explained again on Buddhanet,

The objective of living a holy life (Brahmacariya) in Buddhism is to enable the mind to give up unskillful grasping. You can find this teaching in every discourse in the texts which treats of the attainment of arahantship. The expression used is ‘the mind freed from attachment.’ That is the ultimate. When the mind is free from attachment, there is nothing to bind it and make it a slave of the world. There is nothing to keep it spinning on in the cycle of birth and death, so the whole process comes to a stop, or rather, becomes world transcending, free from the world. The giving up of unskillful clinging is, then, the key to Buddhist practice (http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa7.htm—accessed 9 February 2018).

Specific Buddhist practices

The American vipassana tradition emphasizes four main spiritual practices: mindfulness (sati), loving-kindness (metta), ethics (sila), and generosity (dana). These specific practices may also support Buddhists in their ability to accept new ideas, even if they contradict worldviews that they may have held up till that point. Mindfulness practice, for example, involves the cultivation of undistracted attentiveness to what is being experienced in the present moment (Fronsdal 1998). Mindfulness, as taught by vipassana tradition, allows us to clearly recognize what is going on within us during a given situation and to respond to the situation consciously instead of being driven by emotional reactivity, which can cause cognitive shut-down. Vipassana practices are taught as a means to release one’s self from unskillful thought and behavioral patterns, such as clinging. A passage from the Sutta 10 (verses 848–855) describes the idea of a perfect man, but it also describes the ideal student—openminded and unburdened with ideologies (Table 5).

Table 5 The description of the ideal person according to Buddhist Suttas
Full size table

Here we see one of the most important differentiations between Buddhists and other world religions. While Christians are encouraged to focus on their special creation in the form of God and the promised place in Heaven, Buddhists are actively discouraged to cling to any views, especially those that have to do with our past and our future. Instead the focus for Buddhists remains on the present moment and mindfulness acts as one tool that allows us to see reality as it is: impermanent. Moreover, the focus is also not on self, but on the ways by which we are inherently connected to all sentient beings. This relation to other sentient beings is described in the practices of lovingkindness, ethics and generosity, all of which are supported by mindfulness.

This idea of understanding reality as it is (namely that we are evolved beings) is highlighted in the fact that “Right View” is the first step along the Eightfold Path. Here it should be noted that in his Audio Dharma talks, Fronsdal often explains that the word “right” in this context can best be understood as “fitting” or “useful”, i.e., in the way that a hammer is the right tool to drive a nail into the wall, while a screwdriver would not be the right tool. The word “right” here implies it is useful and is not to be equated with an external authority telling us what is proper or improper. According to Fronsdal, “Right View” requires being very aware of our surroundings and ourselves within those surroundings so that we can avoid getting caught up in opinions or judgments. Right View encourages us with the help of mindfulness to recognize two main components of our experience: (1) whether we are experiencing any stress/suffering/discomfort, (2) to see how we are adding to this stress/discomfort through our own clinging or craving for the situation to be different than it is (http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/2012/09/article-the-buddhas-eightfold-path—accessed 10 February 2018).

One of the main causes for conflict between religious thought and evolution is that evolution tells us that we were not the result of special creation. With the idea of special creation called into question, the idea of eternal life is thus also called into question for many believers. For the Buddhist, though, the use of mindfulness and right view would assist them to see more clearly when they are clinging to the idea of eternal life or wanting life to be eternal instead of impermanent. The Buddhist student is actively encouraged to relinquish these cravings and to accept life as it is: namely impermanent. Even when the Buddha was specifically addressed about the question of re-births, he did not encourage followers to cling to this idea either, instead saying that if you do good deeds in this life because you believe that you will be rewarded in the next, you still profit from these good deeds in the here-and-now regardless of the presence of a re-birth, as seen in this excerpt from The Book of the Threes, “’If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the breakup of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world.’ This is the first assurance one acquires. But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease—free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.’ This is the second assurance one acquires. If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?’ This is the third assurance one acquires. But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.’ This is the fourth assurance one acquires” (AN 3.65).

Applications for science education

Understanding the Buddhist relationship to evolution may provide insight into increasing student receptivity to evolution, particularly when students have an adverse reaction to evolution for religious reasons. While we cannot change religious scriptures to make them less dogmatic and while we cannot prevent fundamentalist religious leaders from proclaiming that a religious person cannot accept evolution, the American Buddhists provide us with real examples of a co-existence of spiritual life and scientific literacy. This is important because it provides evidence that religion and science can co-exist, even support one another in our discovery of ourselves and our world. Moreover, it disproves claims made by fundamentalists that the naturalistic philosophy behind evolution necessarily leads to a breakdown in society and individual morals.

Disproving claims that the acceptance of evolution causes moral decay

As Turkish creationist Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktart) stated, “Darwinism claims that living beings have evolved as a result of coincidences and by means of a struggle for life. This evil morality advises people to be egoistical, self-seeking, cruel and oppressive. The only possible solution that can save humanity from this benighted way of thinking is the widespread acceptance of the values of religion” (2003). Similar statements have also been made by Ben Carson, United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who stated, “I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary [Satan]” (https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ben-carson-darwins-evolution-theory-was-encouraged-adversary-satan—accessed 9 February 2018).

Buddhists are well known for upholding high ethical standards, thus the fact that Buddhists in America have such a high acceptance of evolution shows that Darwin’s ideas are not incompatible with a moral and ethical life-style. One could even argue that the ethical norms practiced by Buddhists are higher than the Christian norms. Just compare the ten commandments with the precepts for Buddhist laypersons i.e., non-monks (Table 6).

Table 6 Comparison of the five precepts and the ten perfections with the ten commandments
Full size table

One reason why fundamentalist Christians assume that all moral constructs within society may decay with the learning of evolution may have to do with the fact that the Christian morality is seen by many as coming from an external figure, i.e., God. According to Exodus these commandments came directly from God as a set of rules that were to be followed explicitly. Notice how the Ten Commandments state, “You shall not…”, pointing to the fact that these tenets have been imposed by an external authority. The assumption is then that if these rules are followed that those who are adherent will be rewarded, while breaking these rules will lead to damnation.

Buddhism, on the other hand, bases its moral or ethical behavior not on the rules set forth by an external authority, but on precepts that are to act as a guide to avoid suffering. The guiding principle here is if you engage in unethical behavior, e.g., causing harm to another sentient being, then you will suffer, e.g., through feelings of guilt. Again, here Buddhism encourages practitioners to explore for themselves, to reflect how they feel when they have acted unethically and then to judge for themselves which behaviors should be abandoned.

Here though, it must be stated that Buddhism begins with a very different assumption about the nature of man than the Christian perspective. The Christian perspective shows man as being ultimately flawed and only through the guidance of their faith in God and the acceptance of Jesus Christ can these humans be saved. If left to their own devices, they would all be unmanageable beasts. For Christian fundamentalists, a loss of faith is equated with a loss of morality because they believe that humans need to be told what to do. As Moses stated in Exodus 20:20 “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning (NIV).” Yet the Buddhists begin with the belief that all humans are good and contain what is sometimes referred to as “Buddha nature.”

According to Buddhist teachings, this good nature does at times become covered or hidden over time through our reactivity to our world, but if we can find enough stillness, we will naturally come face to face with our own goodness and have an innate sense of goodwill that guides us. Again here, this idea that humans have an in-born sense of good will towards others show parallels to evolutionary theory regarding the development of cooperation and empathy among social mammals.

Thus, Buddhists provide evidence that accepting evolution does not cause us to act like animals or to become immoral. Buddhist teachers and adherents uphold extremely high level of morality, arguably even higher than Christians—compare the 3rd precept “Refrain from sexual misconduct” to 7th commandment “You shall not commit adultery” as well as 2nd precept versus 8th commandment and the 4th precept in comparison to the 9th commandment. Yet disproving the evolution-immorality link is not sufficient for science-skeptical students to become immediately open to learning about evolution. The next section will look at how we can apply secularized Buddhist practices in the classroom to offer non-Buddhist students access to the same tools, i.e., a means by which they can recognize when they are clinging to concepts and when this type of clinging is unskillful or even harmful.

Applying secularized Buddhist practices in the classroom

While there is no interest whatsoever in converting students to Buddhism, it is possible to apply certain secular Buddhist practices to help students recognize their own emotional states involved in resistance to and fear of lessons on evolution that may be caused by the clinging to certain ideologies such as creationism. The use of mindfulness for general use in the classroom and the application of these types of techniques for dealing with “thorny” issues such as gender and racism has been studied extensively by Kenneth Tobin, Malgorzata Powietrzynska, Konstantinos Alexakos, Heesoon Bai and others.

One of the most exciting aspects of mindfulness practice is its profound connection to the brain’s general plasticity (Powietrzynska et al. 2014) and thus it has the potential to deeply affect the means by which the practitioner engages with themselves and their environment. Through the practice of mindfulness, practitioners are able to disengage from the so-called “monkey mind”—constantly preoccupied with sporadic thoughts and desires—and instead allows them to anchor themselves in awareness in the present moment, which subsequently supports them in establishing dialogic relationships with other beings (Bai et al. 2005). The applications for education are tremendous as Powietrzynska and Tobin point out, “mindfulness practices offer a unique opportunity to address in the classroom the cognitive and the oft-neglected affective dimensions of human ontology” (p. 1) (2015). One of the most important aspects of mindfulness practices in the classroom, is its potential to help students and teachers become more aware of and ameliorate intense emotions that are associated with teaching and learning (Powietrzynska 2015). Moreover, mindfulness practices have also been shown to support practitioners’ ability to show compassion, act non-judgmentally and acknowledging deep emotional challenges without getting stuck, which are critically important skills for teachers, especially when discussing difficult and emotionally salient topics (Alexakos et al. 2016). In this way mindfulness applications can be used to addresses educational hindrances by minimizing negative emotional states, producing positive emotional environments and increasing wellbeing among students and teachers (Powietrzynska and Tobin 2015). Their combined research has shown that certain Buddhist practices, especially mindfulness practices, can be adapted for classroom use, for instance, by utilizing heuristics. An example a heuristic used by Powietrzynska and Tobin can be seen in Table 7.

Table 7 Example of applied mindfulness through heuristics
Full size table

These heuristic practices have proven to be effective in supporting students in their ability to recognize and observe their own emotional states. This simple self-reflection exercise is often enough to move students away from an unconscious reactivity to stimulus towards a conscious movement towards processing information presented to them in the classroom. The scope of this paper does not allow for an extensive overview of their work, but it suffices to say that their work has already offered empirical evidence regarding the benefits of applied Buddhist practices in the classroom—especially when dealing with topics that are emotionally salient for the students and/or teacher. I will discuss the applications of their work in another upcoming publication.

An educational approach focused on unity not disparity

As Long wrote, “While arguing for fundamentalism to go extinct may be too much, acting to deflect its undue effect on science education is not” (2013, p. 394). In this sense, we must recognize creationism as an ideological movement that aimed at the deconstruction of quality science education and must therefore be vehemently opposed. Yet, at the same time, it is imperative that the creationist student be understood as a product of this movement and not the driver of it. All high school students are in the process of developing their own identity and becoming independent from their family of origin—a necessary step towards becoming an adult. This means that they are in the process of questioning the stories that they have been told and the frameworks of beliefs in which they have grown up. This offers teachers a unique window of influence in their development, because although creationist students bring deeply rooted worldviews with them into the classroom, they are also of an age where it is possible for them to reflect on these beliefs and their usefulness in their lives. It may therefore be possible to enable fundamentally-tinted students to come to understand and possibly even appreciate science with the correct means of instruction.

Buddhist adherents, as well of scores of other religious individuals, have shown that it is possible to be a religious practitioners and accept evolution. As we have seen here, Buddhism is inherently less dogmatic than other religions, which in itself enables followers to more easily accept science instead of clinging to ancient scriptures’ description of creation. Of course, we cannot change other religious teachings to deemphasize the value of blind faith, nor do we want to convert students to Buddhism, but we can use the lessons learned by the Buddhists to show (1) that morality is independent of a faith in God or external control, and (2) it is possible to maintain a religious worldview while accepting a scientific understanding of our own nature and origin. Moreover, we have seen that it is possible to apply certain secularized Buddhist practices such as mindfulness to increase a student’s own awareness of their emotional reactivity to a topic like evolution—an act within itself which allows for more autonomous control of one’s own learning.

Last but not least, teachers, such as Tara Brach have shown that learning about evolution does not need to detract from our spiritual sense of the world but can instead increase a student’s sense of wonder of the world if taught properly. If taught by emphasizing common descent as a unity of life, lessons on evolution enable us to understand and recognize our deep connection to all other living beings on this planet. Thus, learning about evolution can actually promote increased compassion and empathy—major components of all world religions.