In response to, “The science of education,” by Arlie Martin
By Nathan Paul Sharp
Life is full of questions that will never be answered. But in order to appease our curiosity, we investigate them. We did not see the creation of the world; therefore, as respectable, aspiring scientists, we can only make assumptions as to what occurred. Science should be neutral, I agree. But one glance into history will show that the modern scientific movement began with just as much agenda-filled opinion as I did when I began to write this article.
If we believe that science education should be based solely in irrefutable fact, perhaps we should step back and ask ourselves what exactly “irrefutable” means. In reality, we cannot see, touch, test or prove an answer for many of the things that surround us in life. For example, we cannot prove the existence of a governing, moral truth. However, if we believe it exists then it should be everything to us.
In searching for ultimate equality, it is possible that we diminish what freedom truly is. If we are so afraid of losing our liberties that we feel we must make truth relative, we lose the point of truth in the first place. When one accepts God as the ultimate authority over creation, the simple human scales by which life and power are measured no longer possess the ability to adequately gauge the universe and its wonders.
Science is a human attempt to understand creation. It is wonderful, but cannot stand alone.
Students should learn “science” at school, obviously, but despite our high hopes there is little neutrality in the classroom. Too often we teach children to find purpose and respect for one another while simultaneously teaching them that they are the result of an arbitrary void’s wedding with chance.
To whoever believes that the science classroom should remain dedicated to science, I agree with you. However, as faith-filled followers, how deeply should we support the teaching of a modern science that is too often unquestionably coupled with the notion of a God-free world?
If we truly believe that God is the architect of reality, then we must ask ourselves what role our faith plays in the determination of fact. Hell (a topic often avoided by Christian modernity) is impossible to prove by all modes of scientific inquiry, which if we believe to be real, means that truth is of the utmost importance.
We should indeed teach our children to have intellectual conversations as well as to know the arguments against our faith. As Christians, however, we should be cautious regarding our passive encouragement of non-neutral agendas (of any kind) that deny or belittle the notion of God.
I can neither prove nor disprove “evolution.” That is not even the point here. The point is that apart from the Father, there is no such thing as truth. In an ideal world we could teach all forms of science and know that every child would go home to a loving family and be reared in the laws of the Lord. Unfortunately, this is not reality.
We cannot prove our faith to everyone, but we should surely invest in it. If it is by faith in God that we view the world, then it is by faith in Him that we should live in it. If we back away from the teaching of this truth simply because we fear what may arise against us for being “un-scientific,” then soon there will be so many people living or hiding in the dark that we will begin to forget what the light actually looks like.
Teach the theory of evolution, sure! But please be realistic about the society in which we live.
We could pretend that America’s pinky-promising to be fair and equal dominates our school system, but that would be ill-informed.
The reality is that designating a classroom to only “fact” is impossible in a world that defines truth as it goes along. Before we so boldly support a modern social movement that far too often snuffs God from existence, perhaps we should question how wise that truly is. If we do not have enough faith in God or His Word to stand behind Him in all aspects of our lives, why in the world should anybody else ever be expected to do the same?