{"id":459,"date":"2014-11-17T15:00:04","date_gmt":"2014-11-17T21:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.mlc-wels.edu\/wels-educator\/?p=459"},"modified":"2015-11-10T08:10:21","modified_gmt":"2015-11-10T14:10:21","slug":"science-and-the-bible-in-wels-elementary-schools","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.mlc-wels.edu\/wels-educator\/2014\/11\/17\/science-and-the-bible-in-wels-elementary-schools\/","title":{"rendered":"Science and the Bible in WELS Elementary Schools Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part One<\/strong>: Science Professional Development for WELS Elementary School Teachers<\/p>\n

Written by Paul E. Lutze<\/p>\n

Purpose: <\/strong>During the past three decades, I have seen a shift in science attitudes among our staff, students, and families in our small WELS school in the Midwest. Students have been sheltered from science\u2019s glaring errors. Students (and teachers) have ridiculed certain aspects of science only to become themselves the object of ridicule when they move on to high school and college. They graduate from our school not really knowing science or how to defend their Christian beliefs. The Bible has been unintentionally turned into a science textbook using human reason to explain how Scripture verifies or rejects a scientific idea. And attempts are made to use science to verify the Bible. Questions and doubt arise as to what God really said and did in Genesis. Scripture tells us in Matthew 6:24, \u201cNo one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other\u201d (NIV84).<\/p>\n

The Need: <\/strong>In the first line of Martin Sponholz\u2019s paper Two Towers \u2013 The Relationship Between Science and the Bible<\/em> presented to the Minnesota District Pastoral Conference in 1982, he emphatically states: \u201cThere is no relationship between science and the Bible\u201d (Sponholz, 1982). He goes on to give examples of the tower of science made with human reason. This tower is made of bricks that crumble or are pulled out when new scientific evidence proves them false. The scientific community acknowledges that science is a human endeavor and that scientific knowledge is open to revisions in the light of new evidence (NGSS, 2013). Scientific knowledge is reliable, yet can be abandoned or modified when new evidence is available (NSTA, 2000). This makes for a very shaky unstable tower. Picture a Jenga game. One piece after another is pulled out and added to the top. Amazing structures can be made, but eventually they all topple. To be in that modern tower of science is dangerous for the faith of a Christian.<\/p>\n

By virtue of our profession, WELS teachers are jacks-of-all-trades. It is difficult to be an expert in all subject areas. Research has shown that misconceptions within accepted science, particularly in physical science, are common, even among teachers (Stein, Larrabee, & Barman, 2008). If that is true regarding science, what misconceptions might our WELS teachers have in what Scripture does or doesn\u2019t address regarding science? Stein (et al, 2008) quoted Sir Francis Bacon to explain misconceptions: \u201cFor what a man likes to be true, he more readily believes.\u201d Caution must be taken not to speak with authority where Scripture has remained silent. \u201cAlthough God\u2019s power is manifest for all to see, God\u2019s intentions are not\u201d (Nurenburger, 2010, p. 135).<\/p>\n

So, what do we do? God has showered mankind with far too many blessings within the field of science for us to withhold science from our students. That would be a disservice to our students and discredit the graciousness of God. How will our students be able to defend their faith if they don\u2019t know when and where science conflicts with Scripture? How will our teachers be able to effectively instruct students if they themselves have made assumptions regarding Scripture or have misconceptions regarding science?<\/p>\n

Before tackling science standards or conducting a curriculum study, why not a little professional development in science? Survey your teachers; find out their strengths and weaknesses, their attitudes and needs. Take the online Science Beliefs Quiz (Stein, 2014) with your faculty and discuss possible science misconceptions. But even more importantly, get into the Word. Martin Luther College has a Professional Development Series titled \u201cThe Foolishness of God\u201d (Thiesfeldt, 2014). With its Bible study and extra readings, it\u2019s a great way to start. And this is knowledge that can easily be transferred to our students.<\/p>\n

Conclusion: <\/strong>Science is a human endeavor filled with human errors. We are only human. A clearer understanding of science and its limitations can inspire great awe in the God who created it all. We will never, in this life, have a perfect understanding of how the world works. I cannot help but think of the book Flatland<\/em> by Edwin A. Abbott. The people, homes, and landscape of Flatland are all two-dimensional. There is no third dimension. When the main character introduces the concept of another dimension, he is ostracized as a heretic. I can only imagine God shaking His head and saying, \u201cIf only you could see my creation like I do!\u201d<\/p>\n

Paul Lutze\u00a0(DMLC ’84) is the Principal\u00a0at St. Peter’s\u00a0Lutheran School in Sturgeon Bay, WI, and an\u00a0MLC graduate student.<\/i><\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

Abbott, E. A.(1992). Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions<\/em>. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.<\/p>\n

National Science Teachers Association (2000, July), NSTA Position Statement: The Nature of Science. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from NSTA: http:\/\/www.nsta.org\/about\/positions\/natureofscience.aspx<\/a><\/p>\n

Next Generation Science Standards (2013, April), Appendix H \u2013 Understanding the Scientific Enterprise: The Nature of Science in the Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from NGSS: http:\/\/www.nextgenscience.org\/sites\/ngss\/files\/Appendix%20H%20-%20The%20Nature%20of%20Science%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards%204.15.13.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Nurnburger, K. (2010). Martin Luther’s Experiential Theology as a Model for Faith-Science Relationships. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science<\/em> , 45<\/em> (1), 127-148.<\/p>\n

Sponholz, M. (1982, April 20). Two Towers – The Relationship Between Science and the Bible. Minnesota District Pastoral Conference<\/em> . Minneapolis, Minnesota.<\/p>\n

Stein, M., Larabee, T. G., & Barman, C. R. (2008). A Study of Common Beliefs and Misconceptions in Physical Science. Journal of Elementary Science Education<\/em> , 20<\/em> (2), 1-11.<\/p>\n

Stein, M., Larabee, T. G., & Barman, C. R. (2014). Science Beliefs Quiz. Retrieved July 20, 2014, from Oakland Edu: https:\/\/www2.oakland.edu\/secure\/sbquiz\/index.cfm?questionnum=45<\/a><\/p>\n

Thiesfeldt, S. (2014) The Foolishness of God: A Biblical Perspective on Science, Professional Development Series. Retrieved July 30, 2014, from Martin Luther College: https:\/\/mlc-wels.edu\/gsce\/continuing-education\/professional-development-series\/the-foolishness-of-god-a-biblical-perspective-on-science<\/a><\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>