Science and Education #5
The “Two Sciences” Problem Facing Christian Educators
Private Christian Schools have a choice in how they teach the natural sciences. It’s not an easy choice (fore reasons we’ll discuss in a later post), but they can present students with what I’ll call “mainstream secular science” (MSS) or they can teach what I referred to in my last post as ”Christian folk science” (CFS). There are significant differences between the two.
What characterizes mainstream secular science? For starters, MSS is practiced in laboratories all over the world by both Christians and non-Christians, and is used by corporations who depend on results-oriented research to drive product development. By contrast, CFS is primarily found in Christian bookstores and not-for-profit creationist “think-tanks” who are funded primarily by donations from believers who are dissatisfied with the assumptions/conclusions of MSS. The obvious lack of government and corporate funding going to creation “science” organizations is not merely the result of a philosphical bias against Christianity. As we’ll see later, many corporations (such as oil and gas exploration companies) have no particular axe to grind against Christians, and have even hired graduates from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Be assured, they care only about results, which translate into profits, and they would gladly fund research in Voo-Doo if it proved reliable in the field.
MSS employs scientific paradigms that have been universally accepted by the scientific community. These ideas have not merely been granted this status by default, but have earned it through years of proven reliablity. They must be able to (1) sufficiently explain the available data, and to (2) create coherent scientific disciplines that guide further research and technological advancement. Practical utility and reliable results are the sole drivers behind MSS. Spiritual and theological concerns have little impact on the developments of these scientific disciplines.
On the other hand, CFS is not primarily concerned with practical utility. Quite often, the governing paradigm is determined beforehand, and the motivation behind the science is merely to show how the paradigm can be true given the right assumptions. CFS requires that any scientific paradigm (1) upholds biblical inerrancy and supports traditional exegesis, and (2) provides believers with a theologically satisfying portrait of creation. That’s really it. The practical utility of CFS is of little importance to its adherents. All one needs to do is follow the money to see why this is so. Research and development involving MSS is funded by governments and corporations that demand (or at least expect to get) tangible results. Some might blame the separation of church and state. Fine. But private companies are not bound by this unwritten rule. They only care about their bottom line (results), not the separation of church and state. If the ideas touted by organizations such as the Creation Research Society showed any promise of adding to the scientific body of knowledge, the potential for ground-breaking research and development would trump any metaphysical considerations. As it turns out, you don’t find any of their money going to ICR, AiG, or the Discovery Institute. Why not?
So who is paying their bills anyway? Other Christians who are not really that concerned about adding to the scientific body of knowledge, but are rather seeking reassurance from scientists with PhDs that their belief system is ok. In fact, most of the “scientists” publishing creationist literature are in fact non-scientists, or have no professional training in their chosen field of study. Rarely are they practicing scientists who work in a legitimate laboratory or for a corporation that require, above all else, a faithful treatment of the available data. They are not faced with the challenges of getting the science right, nor are they faced with the consequences of getting the science wrong. They don’t have to presen their findings at international conferneces where other experts in the field can evaluate them. They don’t have to publish their articles in peer-reviewed journals. They simply need something that a mostly non-scientific audience can purchase in a Christian bookstore that portrays their worldview assumptions as scientific.
In the next several posts, we’ll examine some examples of CFS in greater detail.