Re Foundational Christianity postings in alt.talk.creationism.
I am new to ng postings, and I submit this in response to a brief sentence
at the end of A.Brown's post concerning his science lessons. Unfortunately
I
have not been able to read all postings on this subject, so I hope some of
you may find this interesting
Concerning the teaching of science and religion, when I undertook my MEd
in
1992-3 at Nottingham University UK, I wanted to focus my studies on the
interface between science and religion. Regrettably, of the available
modules (four were required), I was the only student who applied for the
science module, and the only one who applied for the religious studies
module, therefore the School of Education was unable to run those options!
I
came away with a general MEd, the four modules I did study were
curriculum,
*****sment, equal op****tunities and human relations. My dissertation was
on
the use of computers in small group-work in primary schools. Since I have
moved to Barbados, I have taught secondary general science, and
mathematics
and physics to CXC levels, these at a fundamentalist Christian school (the
"Close Brethren"), and more recently in private tuition. I am a CXC
(Caribbean equivalent of the UK GCSE) and Common Entrance ("11-plus")
mathematics examiner. Privately I have pursued my interest in science and
religion, trying to keep in touch with the most recent controversies, and
furthering the development of my faith through studies in theology. My
wife's family are predominantly Seventh Day Adventist, and I was baptised
into the SDA Church two years ago.
When I first began teaching science in 1966, and ever since, my approach
to
the topic of human biology at KS2-3 (UK NC) was to immediately explain to
students that human development occurred on five levels, the physical, the
intellectual, the social, the emotional and the spiritual, explaining to
eleven-year olds what each of these were in terms of their own
experiences.
Never did I suggest that any one level was more significant than any
other.
However, in science lessons for reasons of time constraints and syllabi,
we
would be more likely to focus on their physical development. I would
explain
that this would not exclude any of the other levels should the topic,
activity or situation in a science lesson demand it. For instance, we
laughed and sometimes cried in our science lessons (emotional development:
a
child once cried in my science lesson when I asked him to talk and write
about ten things he could see in a candle flame - he said he saw his
recently deceased grandma), we had to make decisions regarding with whom
we
worked (social development: whilst organizing pair groupings in a math
class
recently, only one boy volunteered to work with anyone else in the class),
feedback from self-appraisal and external *****sment techniques
(intellectual development: if the school had marks, grades and form
positions then we looked at how these might impact on their motivation and
learning), and finally, how could we avoid declaring our faith when we
introduced the theory of evolution, the atomic and molecular theories, the
'big bang' theory, or the concepts of time, space or infinity? Are we so
sure of our science that we really believe we are going to produce a TOE
(theory of everything)?
I get the impression that Brown et al have only ever focused on the
physical development of the human child in that part of their teaching, to
the point where they then presented this as absolute truth. Fortunately
children are receiving guidance and tuition in the relativity of the
methods
of health care (cf. the rise of complementary medicine), and the other
aspects of human development which I have mentioned. This is from their
parents, their teachers other than of science, their church (if they
attend), and even their own reading. Any science teacher not acknowledging
this will be seen by their students, in this day and age, to be
out-of-touch
and old-fa****oned, which is what I gain from reading some of the newsgroup
postings.
Let me illustrate by example. Seventh Day Adventist teaching emphasises
the
mind, the body and the spirit as co-existing, and each of these three
aspects of the human condition needs nourishment. I cannot see anyone, not
even the most atheistic of scientists, objecting to that. Of course, being
on the ultra-conservative wing of Protestant fundamentalism, the teaching
also emphasises the inerrancy and literal truth of the Bible, therefore an
apparent confict with the atheism of Richard Dawkins (author of "The
Selfish
Gene") et al seems inevitable. In seven years of teaching here in
Barbados,
I have experienced no such conflict because I do not present any
scientific
theory as absolute truth, and incidentally, nor do I, nor most Seventh Day
Adventists whom I have met, accept the absolute literal truth of the
Bible.
We are all in the process of developing our minds, our bodies and our
spirits until our dying day. I hope, trust and pray that Brown et al are
doing so too, but they appear to ****tray individuals still stuck with the
now discredited logical positivism of the 1930's. Even Dawkins, according
to
a recent BBC World TV "Profiles" do***entary, appears to be moving to a
greater spiritual awareness than when he wrote "The Selfish Gene". And we
all know of the atheistic existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre who
apparently declared on his death bed that perhaps there might be, after
all,
a God. Even the most elementary study of contem****ary theology will give
anyone today the realisation that we are in the "end of times", and the
movement of developing spirituality across the face of the earth cannot go
unnoticed. This movement may be Christian, non-Christian, even New
Age(heaven forbid!). The link between Teilhard de Chardin's theological
ideas and the Internet is fascinating. Contem****ary philosophy of science
has relativized at least scientific truth, and mathematics no longer holds
its position as the most absolute and exact of the sciences. I recommend a
thorough reading of Hans Kung in his book "Does God Exist?" (1978) to
begin
to appreciate these insights, and to read his critiques of the atheism of
Feuerbach, of Marx, and of Freud, and of the nihilism of Nietzsche. Do
Brown
et al think that young people are not aware of these developments? I know
in
my own church the sincerity, belief and faith of our young people is
profound, and I would be very surprised if any were on drugs. A science
lesson may warn of the dangers of drug abuse, but I have never believed,
except as a 13-year old boy smitten with the sort of teaching presumably
still being delivered by A Brown (no wonder today's students are turning
away from science), that science would solve the problems of the world,
and
save a young person from taking that first cigarette.
|
