How about using science to support the Biblical teaching that God is triune? We would never do that, but this is an example of what the scholastics did before the Reformation.[i] Martin Luther had little time for this sort of reasoning. Following the posting of the 95 Theses, Luther was asked to present his views at Heidelberg in 1518. Here Luther warned that God is known only by seeing Christ on the cross.[ii] “The theology of the cross” is saving knowledge: the center of the Christian faith. In contrast, a theology of glory, attempts to know and satisfy God through human understandings and efforts.[iii]
Is this a temptation that faces us now? The creation science movement generally assumes that science can support theology. Accordingly, we have seen a series of arguments put forth to support Scripture and a young Earth: the small accumulation of moon dust found by the Apollo astronauts, sightings of Noah’s ark, a dead “plesiosaur” caught near New Zealand, finding “fresh” dinosaur tissue, and identifying mechanisms like blood clotting that are too complex to have evolved. Even Ken Ham, the popular creationist speaker who believes that the Bible and science go hand in hand, runs up a caution flag against accepting some, but not all, of these claims.[iv]
So what does this mean for our schools? We can look to our history. Education at Wittenberg was turned around by the Reformation. Sachiko Kusukawa, a Cambridge historian, has made a very strong case that the reformers at Wittenberg did more than look at theology differently. The very foundation of medieval schooling was overturned: that human reasoning could and should contribute to knowing God.[v]
Science at Wittenberg now turned away from the support of theological doctrines to the discovery of how God preserves us. That God created was assumed on the basis of Scripture. Valerius Cordus, the botanist at the university, asked why God made what he made. Why did he make so many different plants if some were not to serve as remedies for certain diseases? Accordingly, Cordus went on field trips, collected plants, watched the progress of patients at the apothecary shop of Lucas Cranach, and questioned authority.
We would do well to renew this spirit in teaching science. Students should recognize the many ways in which God provides for us.
In the process we will see that not everything in nature is as it should be. Humans require vitamin C as part of an enzyme that makes a protein called collagen. Collagen is found in many places in the body and basically holds our tissues together. We need to be sure that vitamin C is in our diet. Now it has been found that all humans have a gene for making vitamin C, but it is damaged by a frameshift mutation.[vi] It would be one thing to be completely lacking the gene, but it is another when we see the ruins of what once was functional. We see damage in the Creation and are faced with paradox. It is wonderful and it is not. The unbeliever says your God should have done a better job of creating. But Scripture clears the air; nature is suffering because of our sin, not God’s mistakes in design. We need to teach that nature is suffering (Romans 8:22). At the same time we need to encourage the study of how things work in order to reduce this suffering.
The scholastic science, mentioned above, is now gone. We need to teach that history shows that science changes.[vii] If we support Scripture with science, in the manner of creation science, do we not lean onto our own changing understandings (Proverbs 3:5)? Scripture does not need our assistance.
Nevertheless, the knowledge gained through science has been part of God’s providence. For example, the discovery of antibiotics has saved many lives. We need to teach that God blesses us through our understandings.
When we take issue with scientific claims that conflict with Scripture, we should not call the scientists stupid. The assumptions being made are driving the interpretations of the data and the conclusions. Science rightly studies and is limited to natural causes. However, some have gone further and claimed that there are only natural causes. We need to teach that in all subjects, the assumptions being made affect the conclusions.[viii] This is the major apologetic needed against claims of an evolutionary origin. Those who hold to a theory of macroevolution have assumed that there are only natural causes for everything. Creation was a series of miracles that are outside of science. Even when natural causes occur, God is behind them. As Martin Galstad said, God is operating in everything around us, but we need the Word to see things fall into place.[ix]
So it follows that we can study all of science. Our youngsters can enjoy the dinosaurs and the layers of rock. When reading the claims for an old Earth, let them remember that Adam, Eve, and the garden were all created with age. It is, in fact, impossible to create without an appearance of a history that never happened. Philip Gosse, a contemporary of Darwin, pointed this out by asking if Adam and Eve had navels. Gosse listed many things that needed age if they were to be fully operational.[x] We can add to his list. We know that Eve had eggs in her ovaries. Normally females have their eggs set aside before they are born, when they are inside their mother. In Eve’s case, her eggs were part of virtual history.
Were the dinosaur fossils part of the virtual history?[xi] We do not know. We need to say no more than we can. Arguments can also be made that they lived with us. Perhaps Behemoth was one (Job 40:15ff). When we get to heaven, we can find out.
Students need to understand how science is done. They need to experience inquiry lessons that invite critical thinking and the shaping of conclusions. There is joy in the study of God’s creation. At Wittenberg, seeing evidence of God’s preservation and providence in nature was a way of giving glory to God.[xii]
Luther said it this way: “We are at the dawn of a new era, for we are beginning to recover the knowledge of the external world that was lost through the fall of Adam. . . . By the grace of God we already recognize in the most delicate flower the wonders of divine goodness and omnipotence.” This should be the thrust of science in our schools.
Written by Professor Emeritus Paul Boehlke, PhD. Paul served as a Professor of Science at both Martin Luther College (MLC) and Wisconsin Lutheran College (WLC). He is currently an adjunct member of the MLC graduate faculty.
[i] Kiessling, Elmer C. The Early Sermons of Luther and Their Relation to the Pre-reformation Sermon. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1935, 30. This is Professor Kiessling’s doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago. He taught at Northwestern College from 1927 to 1973. Kiessling discusses the content of sermons before the Reformation.
[ii] Luther’s Works, Vol. 31, edited by Harold J. Grimm. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1957, 40.
[iii] Sasse, Hermann. “Briefe an lutherische Pastoren” translated by Arnold J. Koelpin, Dr. Martin Luther College, 10-31-1981, essay file, Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary.
[iv] Ham, Ken. “What’s the Best “Proof” of Creation?” The New Answers, Book 2. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/best-proof-of-creation, accessed 2-25-13.
[v] Kusukawa, Sachiko. The Transformation of Natural Philosophy; The Case of Philip Melanchthon. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995, 44.
[vi] De Tullio, Mario C. “The Mystery of Vitamin C.” Nature Education 3(9):48, 2010. http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-mystery-of-vitamin-c-14167861 accessed 2-125-13. Interestingly, De Tullio does make some effort to explain why natural selection failed to conserve the gene.
[vii] Sponholz, Martin. “Different.” Discovering God’s Creation: a Guidebook to Hands-on Science. New Um: The Printshop, Martin Luther College, 1997, xvi-xviii.
[viii] Boehlke, Paul, Laurie M. Knapp, and Rachel L. Kolander. “How Science Works: Putting Presuppositions on the Table.” Zygon: the Journal of Religion and Science 41(2) 415-425, (June 2006).
[ix] Galstad, Martin. Findings: Explorations in Christian Life and Learning (Second Ed). Milwaukee: Wisconsin Lutheran College Press, 2008, 75.
[x] Boehlke, Paul R. “Contemplating Our Navels: Consideration of Time That Never Was.” Charis, Spring 2005, 13-29. http://www.charis.wlc.edu/publications/charis_spring05/boehlke.pdf, accessed 2-20-13.
[xi] A question asked at the Lake Lutheran Teachers’ Conference, meeting at Immanuel Lutheran School, Waukegan, Illinois, February 22, 2013.
[xii] Preus, Robert D. The Theology of Post-reformation Lutheranism: God and His Creation, Volume II. St. Louis: Concordia, 1972, 30.
The vast quantities of fossils, deposits of coal and oil, and continental-sized sedimentary rock, which we find today, are what would be expected from a year-long Noachic flood which covered the entire earth. Dead ocean creatures are buried by the trillions all over the earth and on the tallest mountains. Many creationists believe Noah’s Flood produced most fossils, and that dinosaurs became extinct because they could not survive in the post flood environment.
Scripture does not tell us if these fossils and rock layers resulted from Noah’s flood, or were made during creation week, or if they came about some other way. Some have proposed that dinosaurs never were living animals, but are simply fossils created by God during creation week. If that is the case, then the Noachic flood must have been tranquil, so as not to disturb those rock layers and fossils. A tranquil flood seems to me very unreasonable, both from a scientific view, and also from the Biblical description of the flood.
A well-written and interesting article. Thank you. The question of dinosaur fossils and virtual history is one I would have never thought of on my own. Is there enough science out there to answer that question about the formation of oil and coal? I mean did oil and coal exist at creation or do we know has there been enough time since creation for their formation?