Science Literacy

Literacy is a term with rich and diverse meaning. Without a qualifying adjective, it simply means the ability to read and write. Reading and writing ability suggest comprehension of what is read and the ability to express one’s thoughts in written form. The term scientific literacy is used in a broader and more specific sense. A partial list includes overcoming fear, understanding concepts, discovering answers, making decisions, and ability to evaluate scientific issues. Science literacy is a more elusive goal than commonly thought. Science appreciation may be a more realistic goal, both for school students and for our fellow Christians.

The Christian’s attitude toward science and the Christian’s worldview are integrally related. Consider this functional definition: Worldview relates to how we make sense of God, reality, the world, knowledge, ethics, history, human nature, human destiny, the problem of evil, logic, consciousness, music, mathematics, and science. Therefore, our personal attitude toward science has an important connection with the vision of our place in the world. Sadly, I must report that the attitude toward science of many people within our churches does not strengthen their Christian worldview.

If we establish that a healthy perception of science helps create a healthy Christian worldview, where do we go from there? Do we work hard to try to improve the scientific literacy of our church members? I submit that such a goal is unrealistic and unreachable for the most part. In 1995 an interesting book was published by physicist/science educator Morris Shamos (1917-2002). He claimed, in The Myth of Scientific Literacy, that the vast majority of students emerge from science classes with neither an intellectual grasp nor a pragmatic appreciation of science. Shamos’s curriculum goals would emphasize science appreciation rather than science literacy. This may be analogous to encouraging students in the joy of playing basketball rather than teaching them the physics of trajectory, laws of motion, and the history of the game.

Many college transcripts contain records of a few courses such as “Art History and Appreciation” or “Understanding Musical Styles.” Immersing a beginning student in full scope study of art techniques or a thorough scrutiny of music theory would be a “turn off.” For decades I have heard calls from alarmed and well-meaning government officials intent on increasing the science literacy of our students. These campaigns never achieved the hoped-for results. Science literacy is a complex and difficult objective. On the other hand, fostering appreciation of science is far more productive and enjoyable for students. Science literacy may follow as a more natural outcome.

Science is an effective apologetic instrument to demonstrate the reality of the work of the Creator in lovingly establishing nature’s laws, the design of the cosmos, and the functioning of living things. We may draw another analogy to the instruction our pastors provide. They do not visualize future seminarians sitting in every pew. But they are fulfilled as their parishioners acquire a clear vision of God and His resources operating effectively in their lives.

Liking and Disliking Science

When discussions about my involvement with science arise, I am sometimes greeted with sentiments such as “I like science!” I am pleased when someone tells me he or she “likes science” and disappointed when the opposite sentiment is vocalized. It is apparent that many factors contribute to human likes and dislikes, whether we are talking about a leisure activity, preferences in friendships, church worship styles, or even a broad, inclusive topic like science.

Attitudes toward science among our fellow believers are not always positive. Sometimes they are even resistant, verging on the negative. Our dislikes relate to what we fear. We often fear what we do not understand. Science is an extremely broad-based and multifaceted field of knowledge. Therefore, many fear science simply because the quantity of knowledge seems overwhelming, among many other reasons. But there are important theological truths to be achieved from gaining knowledge of characteristics of the creation which originated in the mind of God. Scripture encourages this study.

Job 12:8-9 states “…or speak to the earth and it will teach you…” This phrase occurs in the context of animals, birds, and fish referenced in the surrounding verses. We may infer that the characteristics and laws of the natural world provide us with valuable lessons for living. The animals receive their wisdom from God, and the attributes of the earth itself reflect the orderly planning of the Creator.

“Speak to the earth and it will teach you” implies that our study of how the world operates informs us of operating principles in both the physical and spiritual realms. Scripture contains abundant references to events in the heavens, the world of weather, and the behavior of animals and plants. Many passages suggest scientific discoveries confirmed in our day, centuries after they were written. For example, the creation narrative speaks of the beginning of time, space, matter, and energy in a transcendent creation event initiated by God. Romans 8:22 could refer to the cosmos’s present governance by the law of entropy: “…creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay.” The many Old Testament references to the stretching out of the heavens describe our expanding universe. The methods of scientific inquiry and methodology which have flourished in the past 400 years of the scientific revolution were actually birthed in precepts outlined in scripture. The success of these methods has provided man with rich spiritual lessons.

Such topics may strike those who fear science as threatening and inaccessible. Perhaps school science instruction was approached in an overly pedantic fashion, without joy, enthusiasm, or humor. Now and then truly spectacular science demonstrations could help, such as the Sermons from Science programs at past World’s Fair pavilions or the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. But these hyper-fascinating demonstrations are not what most science educators hope their students embrace as “Science.” Instead, they wish their students could acquire a vision of science as a broader, more inclusive knowledge and understanding of the wonder of everyday life experiences.

This issue is not as simple as liking or disliking science. Over the centuries, the attitude of the Christian church with respect to science as a support structure for theological truths has varied considerably. One thing seems certain, however. There is a harmony between the world of science and the world of theology. God is the author of truth in both spheres.

Monarch Moments

For the third consecutive summer, one of our blog posts highlights the Monarch butterfly, one of the most remarkable animals on the planet. Last weekend I was on hand for a service of healing and remembrance entitled "Monarch Moments" for family members touched by Alzheimer’s disease. Monarch butterflies were released in remembrance of loved ones.

An extra specimen was handed to me to release from its triangular, temporary containment box. My Monarch quickly joined many other released butterflies in sampling the nectar of flowers in the rose garden before sailing off to regions unknown.

After returning home I researched the question of whether such artificially raised Monarchs suffer any ill effects from their culture and release in this manner. All information indicated they do not. The wild population they blend with is not weakened by disease, parasites, or genetic alteration. Most remarkable, they join their wild friends in normal reproductive processes. In northeast Iowa, that means they will lay eggs on milkweed plants. Within a month, those eggs will transform into the adult butterflies of the next generation. At this time of year, that generation will take off for a special, remote forest in Mexico to overwinter, using a guidance system not completely understood by scientists, but known to the Monarchs and their Maker.

At this writing I have four tiny Monarch butterfly caterpillars in a container supplied with fresh milkweeds. They were found in our neighborhood as tiny eggs on the bottom of milkweed leaves. They are now in stage two of the four-stage (complete) metamorphosis manifest by butterflies and moths. Stage three is the pupa; stage four is the adult butterfly. These generation four adults, the last generation of the summer and the only one to migrate, will soon embark on a harrowing, months-long journey to a unique pine and fir forest in the high mountains of central Mexico shared by many millions of other Monarchs. Those butterflies achieving success will have coped with rainstorms, wind, and predators, among other hazards, flying over broad expanses of land and water. Only about 30 acres in size, the destination is the same year after year.

Each Monarch starts life as a tiny egg no larger than a pinhead. In the egg are millions of microscopic cells, each containing even tinier molecules of DNA. Into this DNA is programmed the unique appearance and behavior of each of the four stages of metamorphosis. Perhaps the most remarkable programming results in the migratory scenario which unfolds each fall in Monarchs by the millions. It may be the most spectacular migratory accomplishment of any of earth’s creatures. Scientists can only point to the simple two digit DNA code of information present in all living things, and wonder!

Attributing the beauty and behavior of Monarchs to a blind evolutionary scenario is irrational beyond comprehension. How much more rational is it to accept evidence of design by an intelligent agent? Our world has millions of manifestations of intelligent design. The relationship between structure and function, one of the themes of biology, is not always easy to explain. Biologists often describe complex processes in living things, but explaining them is another matter. Therefore, the mysteries of the Monarch may never be fully known.

Psalm 104 contains creation passages of great depth. “What a wildly wonderful world, God! You made it all, with Wisdom at your side, made the earth overflow with your wonderful creations…All the creatures look expectantly to you to give them their meals on time. You come, and they gather around; you open your hand and they eat from it…Oh, let me sing to God all my life long, sing hymns to my God as long as I live!” (Psalm 104: 24, 27, 33 The Message translation)

Does It Really Matter?

Do our personal creationism beliefs really matter? During 2010, many of our posts have focused on various aspects of the issue of creation time scales. It seems to be a matter of intense interest both within the faith community and among others examining our beliefs. However, the subject matters more to some than to others.

Recently an acquaintance proposed the idea that the age of the earth really doesn’t matter to her. To paraphrase her statements, whether the earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old makes no difference with respect to her Christian faith, her belief in God, her embrace of Christ as Savior, or her daily experience as a Christian.

My friend made a good case. I agree with each and every point and I respect her decision to leave it at that. But I would go further because I am keenly interested in and care deeply about the origins issue. I’ll share a few reasons.

The natural world is an open book. Its pages invite inspection and reveal plentiful information about present and past conditions on this earth. How, when, and under what conditions did things happen? Active inquiry into natural history reveals how God has worked to produce our exquisitely designed cosmos and its life forms. The fact that the universe appears to have developed over an extended time scale speaks even more eloquently of God’s tender care for His creation.

Since the secular world generally accepts the findings of mainstream science, that segment of our population wishes to discover if Christian interpretations of the natural world accord with the discoveries of mainstream science. Secularists demand evidence for God’s existence. Scientific discovery of an actual beginning of finite time, matter, space, and energy in the distant past, affirmed by many independent lines of evidence, speaks persuasively of scripture’s claim of God’s existence and His activity as Creator over long ages.

It is natural for people to be curious about history--family history, community history, or natural history. Inquisitiveness often correlates with our degree of enjoyment, especially if our quest yields knowledge. Knowledge of and trust in the truths of general revelation help us clarify the meaning of scripture.

Much of my interest in creationism relates to my enthusiasm for science as a discipline and for the knowledge that results from application of scientific inquiry. It is the continuing goal of this blog to promote science as a God-given means of discovering truth, whether in the study of creation history, or the establishment of a sense of wonder for God’s created world.

Evolution of Creationism

Creationism issues have occupied well over half of our blog space since the beginning of 2010. The history of the origins discussion within the church has been spotlighted. For better or for worse, creationists of every persuasion are fond of supporting their beliefs by citing what their forebears thought. In the early days of the scientific revolution, church scholars believed the earth was only a few thousand years old. Around 1750 there began to be scientific rumblings that the earth was much older than 6000 years.

From the mid-18th to the mid-19th centuries, most scientists, including many who were well known for their traditional Christian beliefs, came to recognize that the earth was not young, but rather, of great antiquity. This realization rested on increasingly sophisticated, careful study and interpretation of the earth’s geological record.

Christian concerns from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century centered more on the belief that molecules to man evolution eroded belief in the reality of God’s creative acts, particularly of the creation of man in God’s image. During this time period there were discoveries such as radiometric dating and advances in cosmology which strengthened acceptance of old earth, even among Christians. Doubts about the age of the earth and belief in flood geology as theological sticking points were somewhat peripheral matters.

The latter half of the 20th century, continuing into the 21st, witnessed a stunning rise to prominence of belief in young earth, 24-hour, consecutive days of creation, and a recent, global flood. It is based on the belief that this is the only interpretation of Genesis 1-2 allowable, scientific evidence notwithstanding. Over 40% of the population of the United States identifies with this view. In the evangelical and fundamentalist church population, the percentage is much higher.

As I have prepared these blog posts, I have attempted to recall events and circumstances of church life prior to the landmark arrival of John C. Whitcomb and Henry H. Morris onto the evangelical/fundamentalist scene with their publication of The Genesis Flood. My personal experience has been combined with my research into the characteristics of the pre-1961 landscape. The writings of George McCready Price in the 1920s and 1930s gradually set the stage for the young earth creationist movement.

As a teenager growing up during the Korean War, I do not recall time frames of creation or flood geology being significant discussion topics in the church. My recollection puts Moody Bible Institute’s Sermons from Science films as popular features in gospel preaching churches back then, along with youth and adult evangelism rallies. I view the Moody Science Films as one of the original “intelligent design” promotions within the church community. This occurred even before the marvelous discovery of DNA structure in 1953, and the subsequent unlocking of the genetic code during the 1960s.

The misunderstandings between young earth and old earth believers, and the ridicule from scientists heaped upon creationists in our day, was not part of the landscape in the 1950s. Today, the term “creationist” connotes a belief in a 6000 year old earth, 24-hour creation days, and a recent, global flood.

The term “creationist” has been co-opted by the young earth community of Christians. I prefer the definition offered by Mark Noll, religion historian, in his award-winning volume The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: “The word creationism by rights should define a divine mind at work in, with, or under the phenomena of the natural world.” This definition overcomes the problem of a singular, narrow definition which allows only one interpretation of the language of Genesis 1-2.

Respect for Authority

Several months ago a group of thirteen professionally trained astronomers considered formal presentations by two other professionally trained Christian astronomers who presented their arguments on the age of the universe. Each of the thirteen Christian astronomers has earned a PhD. and is currently employed at an educational venue such as Alabama, Arizona State, California, Calvin, Caltech, Chicago, Cornell, Rice, and Valparaiso.

The two presentations were given by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner and Dr. Hugh Ross. Faulkner is physics and astronomy professor at the University of South Carolina and is one of several well-known astronomers promoting a young universe creationist perspective. Ross is a well-known astrophysicist, old universe creationist, and president of Reasons to Believe, a think tank presenting evidence on a wide variety of science/faith topics.

Civility and respect characterized the exchange. In conformity with the professional expertise of the panel, the evidence offered focused on astronomical data, not Biblical interpretation.

Ross's arguments were found by the panel to provide solid evidence that the universe is billions of years old. His view was based on several independent arguments based on a wide range of data. He emphasized the strength of the light travel time argument.

Faulkner, in keeping with the common and accepted scientific practice of looking for holes in well-established theories, presented claims for isolated inconsistencies in the old universe view, but did not actually present evidence for a few thousand-year-old universe, according to the panel's report.

In their final sentence the entire panel stated, "It is our professional judgment that the weight of evidence overwhelmingly supports a universe that is billions of years old."

This group of thirteen Christian astronomers speaks with the authority inherent among scientists when they achieve scientific consensus concerning broad knowledge in a particular field. We may say they speak with authority about conditions in the cosmos, past and present. The created cosmos is part of God's dual revelation: the general revelation of Himself through the cosmos, and the special revelation given to man in the written word, the Bible. They do not believe their interpretation of the cosmos (general revelation), contradicts the information given in the written word of God (special revelation). Correctly interpreted, the two revelations can not contradict one another. Rather, they complement and support one another.

A profound problem occurs when theologians permit their interpretations of the written word (special revelation) to control and drive interpretations of past and present conditions in the physical cosmos (general revelation). That is a formula for disaster. Interpretations in both areas of the dual revelation could be in error as a result.

Light Travel Problem

In order for the massive amount of mainstream scientific evidence for the great age of the universe (13.73 billion years) and earth (4.54 billion years) to be rejected, the accepted beliefs about the behavior of light must be called into question. I encourage readers to investigate the issue for themselves. There are thousands of resources on this topic in the literature of science. Theologians weigh in on the question with their support for one view or another.

Mainstream science discoveries of the past century support a universe of enormous age based largely on our knowledge of distances in the universe and our knowledge of the speed of light. Elapsed time (the age of the universe) is calculated by a simple formula: time = distance divided by speed. The distance to the farthest object in the universe divided by the speed of light gives us the age of the universe. Hundreds of independent discoveries affirm the findings. Scientists recognize the Big Bang event as the beginning of the time, space, matter, and energy of our universe.

Interestingly, there is disagreement on neither the size of the universe nor the speed of light. Both young earth and old earth scienstists agree on these issues. Instead, what is in question is how light behaved in the past under circumstances which may have differed, and whether what we think we observe today is really true. Stated another way, if light behaves differently now, or if something acts to distort our perception of light's behavior, our calculated time frames for the age of the universe may be in error, perhaps enormously in error.

Many theologians have realized the need for a rigorous adherence to good science as it relates to theological matters. Thomas F. Torrance (1913-2007) wrote, "You are compelled to think by the evidential grounds upon which you work." In Preaching Christ Today: The Gospel and Scientific Thinking, Torrance stated, "I believe God has created the universe in such a way that the invariance of light in its creaturely way is a reflection of his eternal invariance, his changeableness, and his faithfulness. If light were to wobble, the universe would be thrown into complete lawlessness. If God were to wobble, if God were not utterly faithful, the same yesterday, today, and forever, there would be an utterly chaotic state of affairs in space and time."

A serious problem is denial of the reality of what we believe we observe. There are many young earth scientists posing questions casting doubt on an old universe. For example, young earth astronomer Dr. Jason Lisle of Answers in Genesis sees a so-called "horizon problem" he says throws the age issue into doubt. Astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner of Creation Ministries International admits (young earth) creationists do not have all the answers, but the questions he raises are enough for Faulkner to place himself staunchly in the camp of believers in a 6000-year-old earth. Diverse and overwhelming evidence for an old universe is not persuasive for Lisle and Faulkner. Rather, isolated questions and uncertainties win the day for them.

Sometimes it is desirable to ask, "What if...?" Scientists ask such questions all the time, and well they should. But relentless questioning and reinterpretation of a constant such as the behavior of light may run counter to our quest for knowledge of the truth. We may then be operating outside the insights of the inspired Old Testament prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 33:25) who referred to "God's covenant with day and night, and the fixed laws of heaven and earth." God requires that we examine the weight of evidence and judge accordingly.