By Michael Plocher<\/p>\n
As young children many of us explored God\u2019s creation using an inquiry method of learning. We sought out answers to whatever piqued our interest as we looked at the world around us. This same inquiry approach can be applied to teaching science. When done properly it will lead students to appreciate the works of the Creator.<\/p>\n
When we use inquiry to teach science, we can provide safe, problem-based, group-based learning activities. This provides students an opportunity to discover and share knowledge and also to create a way to demonstrate or display the results of their learning. Collaboration takes place as they use their classmates, teacher, family members, or others as learning resources (Brown 2003). When using inquiry-based learning and focusing students\u2019 attention on the natural world, we must also remember to point out and teach the concrete details that, as Galstad (1984) states, \u201chold our interest.\u201d It\u2019s these fine points and concrete, specific details that create a richer learning experience that then leads to a greater understanding and appreciation of God\u2019s creation.<\/p>\n
Using inquiry in its purest form allows students\u2019 questions and curiosities to drive curriculum. However, pure inquiry could lead to an individual who is undereducated and who does not know Jesus, because understanding the world around us only shows that there is a creator but not who that creator is. To prevent this from happening, Lutheran teachers still follow a curriculum and guide students through it, and they also continue to share the gospel, leading their students to know more about their Savior through the teaching of God\u2019s Word.<\/p>\n
Some agree to an inquiry approach that leads to a deeper appreciation of creation, but they also go one step farther, believing we should use science, our observations, and our reason to prove the Bible is true. This is called the theology of glory and contrasts with the theology of the cross, a term coined by Martin Luther to refer to theology that states the cross and God\u2019s Word as the only source of knowledge concerning who God is and how God saves.<\/p>\n
While these people may believe that all God\u2019s Word is correct, they attempt to prove its validity by tying in things that are observable. When we are tempted to do this, we should remember Boehlke\u2019s (2013) caution: \u201cIf we support Scripture with science . . . do we not lean onto our own changing understandings (Proverbs 3:5)? Scripture does not need our assistance.\u201d When teaching science, we must make clear that God\u2019s creation does not allow us to know God\u2019s thoughts; rather, it simply allows us to use our reason as we learn what God has done. This leads us to marvel at his creation, ask more questions, and then look again, all the while \u201cpraising God for his continuing preservation and providence\u201d (Boehlke 2013).<\/p>\n
Science should not be taught with the intent that it will allow us to know the mind of God or to validate the Bible. Because Scripture needs no support and stands completely on its own, science and our reason must not be used in any way to prove its validity. When we teach science we should do so in a way that allows inquiry learning but discourages students from using science or their reason to support their understanding of the Bible. Finally, science should be taught using a guided inquiry approach that supports student\u2019s natural curiosity about the world around them. This in turn will lead students to give praise and honor to God for his awesome creation.<\/p>\n