RELASI NILAI-NILAI KEISLAMAN DAN MATERI POKOK ILMU PENGETAHUAN SOSIAL (IPS) DALAM BUKU TEKS TERBITAN KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN DAN KEBUDAYAAN

The relationship between science and religion is often a hot topic of conversation among the public. Many scientists argue that science and religion are two different things, even contradicting each other. Based on these assumptions, this study aims to analyze and describe the relationship between Islamic values and the subject matter of social studies in textbooks published by the Ministry of Education and Culture on theme 3 "Care for Living Beings". In this research, the writer uses Ian G. Barbour's theoretical framework which suggests that the relationship between science and religion consists of conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. The research method used in this research is library research or content analysis with data collection techniques using documentation techniques to find/observe, collect information, then analyze in the hope of obtaining relevant and valid data. Meanwhile, in analyzing the data the author prepares equipment (pencils, pens, and notebooks), work bibliography, organizes time, reads and concludes. While the object in this study is the theme book 3 "Care for Living Things" revised the 2017 edition of the ministry of education and culture for grade IV SD / MI. The results show that the relationship between Islamic values and the main subject of social studies is not contradictory, separated, or not just similar, but can be unified between the two of them by tracing the verses of the Koran and Hadith to find a meeting point for the relationship between the two. Furthermore (1) Islamic values contained in a thematic book on theme 3 consists of aqidah values in the form of responsibility and religion; the value of worship includes caring for the environment; and moral values in the form of discipline. Furthermore (2) The relationship between Islamic values and social science issues contained in the textbook consists of 3 of 4 typologies proposed by Barbour, namely a) independent, c) dialogue, and d) integration