{"id":463,"date":"2014-12-16T15:00:27","date_gmt":"2014-12-16T21:00:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.mlc-wels.edu\/wels-educator\/?p=463"},"modified":"2015-11-10T08:09:36","modified_gmt":"2015-11-10T14:09:36","slug":"science-and-nature-in-wels-elementary-schools","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.mlc-wels.edu\/wels-educator\/2014\/12\/16\/science-and-nature-in-wels-elementary-schools\/","title":{"rendered":"Science and Nature in WELS Elementary Schools Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part Two<\/strong>: Teaching Nature of Science and History of Science<\/p>\n

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

Purpose: <\/strong>While science uses human reason to explain the world in which we live, our WELS schools focus on Christ. We use God\u2019s Word as the absolute truth in all we teach. Immediately, a red flag goes up. Can Lutheran schools adopt national or state science standards and still remain Lutheran?<\/p>\n

I read many fascinating pieces of information while researching the topic of science that made my awe of God more profound. \u201cScience can lead to awe and humility\u201d (Nurenburger, 2010, p. 143). I also became aware of the weakness of man\u2019s logic. We should not accept science as our master, but make it a servant. To do that, we must understand the current science worldview. The history of science is vital to understanding any explanations of nature (Sponholz, 1979). By teaching the Nature of Science and the History of Science, our WELS schools can help our students learn that science is a tool we use to help us understand the world God created for us and to effectively use new discoveries for the benefit of all people.<\/p>\n

Nature of Science and History of Science: <\/strong>The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) adopted a position statement on the Nature of Science in July of 2000. Scientific knowledge is reliable yet can be abandoned or modified when new evidence is available. According to the definition of science, it is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations, which prevents the use of supernatural elements in producing scientific knowledge (NSTA, 2000).<\/p>\n

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) incorporates both Nature of Science and History of Science, recognizing that \u201cscience is both a set of practices and the accumulation of knowledge\u201d (NGSS-Appendix H, 2013). They use the National Research Council\u2019s (NRC) Framework for K-12 Science Education to help students observe, question, explain, test, defend, and reflect. They encourage the use of case studies from History of Science to give students a better understanding of the Nature of Science (NGSS, 2013). The Nature of Science uses scientific methods and processes to learn, to reflect, and to evaluate. Research has also provided some evidence that History of Science case studies can improve students\u2019 interest and participation in physics lessons (Guney & Seker, 2012).<\/p>\n

Using historical controversies can be used to develop students\u2019 analysis and argumentation skills. The fact that some historical controversies have resolutions is important to these lessons. It shows that with the new evidence and documentation developed after the controversy, that scientific knowledge evolves and changes. An additional benefit is that these case studies can help train students to recognize \u201cbad science\u201d (Clary & Wandersee, 2013).<\/p>\n

Cautions: <\/strong>The structure of NGSS, in and of itself, is not incompatible with WELS teachings. It is the application of the standards that causes alarm. The NSTA carries their position too far when they specifically spell out that \u201cevolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be emphasized in K-12 science education frameworks and curricula\u201d (NSTA, 2013). Their position is that evolution, in both its broad sense and biological sense, has enough evidence to make it true. Only true scientific evidence is enough to change the evolutionary theory.<\/p>\n

In their defense of science, the NSTA and NRC, and NGSS by association, have attacked fundamental Christian beliefs. They push their evolutionary beliefs and call for the exclusion of alternative beliefs such as Creation Science, Intelligent Design, and other creationistic ideas. \u201cThe science community must keep its collective eye on antievolutionism as it evolves, for science suffers if the public understanding of science suffers\u201d (Scott & Branch, p.284). They have a point.<\/p>\n

The fault we as Christians have with modern science is that it does not allow for the supernatural. Miracles cannot be supported by science. Therefore there is no creation, no virgin birth, no resurrection from the dead, and ultimately no God.<\/p>\n

Creation science goes too far in the other direction, using science to prove Scripture. We dare not use science to validate Scripture. Nor is Scripture a science book (Boehlke, 2005). Intelligent Design is another way of explaining origins without giving full credit to our Creator. Theology of evolution argues that evolution and Christianity do not have to be incompatible (Scott & Branch, 2003).<\/p>\n

Martin Sponholz addressed this issue in an essay to the Minnesota District Pastoral Conference titled Two Towers \u2013 The Relationship Between Science and the Bible:<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cWhen debate comes with an evolutionist, it must be fought on what think ye of Christ. Is Jesus the Son of God? Was He born of a virgin? Did He suffer and die for my sin? Did He rise on Easter? Will I see God in eternity with my own eyes? This is what all our teaching must lead to. This is how our children after us must also learn and teach. It is Satan who directs attention away from the true questions and true answers.\u201d (Sponholz, 1982)<\/p>\n

Conclusion: <\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0 In our WELS schools, we cannot eliminate Scripture when teaching our science classes. \u201cTo dismiss religious systems of meaning as subjective, and thus irrelevant, is one of the great, albeit unintended, deceptions of science because it renders humans rootless and rudderless creatures\u201d (Nurenburger, 2010, p. 132).<\/p>\n

Nor do we need to eliminate the teaching of the Nature and History of Science. We can use them to learn the wonders of God\u2019s creation and the limits of human efforts. Where science contradicts Scripture, we must listen to Scripture. \u201cAs Christians we believe that Christ rose not because of scientific laws but because of the power of God\u201d (Lane, 2013). True education is fearing, loving, and trusting God above all things. It is searching the Scriptures. It is putting on the full armor of God.<\/p>\n

Paul Lutze\u00a0(DMLC ’83) is the Principal\u00a0at St. Peter’s\u00a0Lutheran School in Sturgeon Bay, WI, and an\u00a0MLC graduate student.<\/i><\/p>\n

Resources<\/strong><\/p>\n

Boehlke, P. (2005). Contemplating Our Navels: Consideration of Time That Never Was. Charis Publications.<\/em> Retrieved June 27, 2014, from Charis Wisconsin Lutheran College: http:\/\/www.charis.wlc.edu\/publications\/charis_spring05\/boehlke.pdf<\/p>\n

Clary, R., & Wandersee, J. (2013). Arguing History: SSSS Teaching Historical Scientific Controversies to Engage Students in Discourse and the Nature of Science. The Science Teacher<\/em> , no. 5<\/em>, p. 39.<\/p>\n

Guney, B. G., & Seker, H. (2012). The Use of History of Science as a Cultural Tool to Promote Students’ Empathy with th Culture of Science. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice<\/em> , 12<\/em> (1), 533-539.<\/p>\n

Lane, A. N. (2013, January). Is the truth out there? Creatures, cosmos and new creation (Part two). Evangelical Quarterly<\/em> , 85<\/em> (1), pp. 3-18.<\/p>\n

National Science Teachers Association (2013, July), NSTA Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from NSTA: http:\/\/www.nsta.org\/docs\/PositionStatement_Evolution.pdf<\/a>.<\/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. (1979, March 7). Some Truths of Science. Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary<\/em> . Mequon, Wisconsin.<\/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

Scott, E.C., & Branch, G. (2003, March). Antievolutionism: Changes and Continuities. BioScience , 53<\/em> (3), 282-286.<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>