Are American Public School Science Programs Anti-Christian

Greeting folks,

I am a science teacher in a public high school, and I am working on this
article for my website, but wanted to get your take on it. For hyperlinks to
references cited, you can go to www.god4science.com/schools.htm. Thanks for
any input you would like to offer.

Are American Public Schools Anti-Christian? Do they teach Atheism?

The recent battles over intelligent design in public classrooms have
resurrected questions like these, though they are certainly not new. Witness
the ubiquitous existence of private Christian schools and the seemingly
exponential growth of the Christian homeschooling movement in recent years,
(see the US Dept. of Ed. stats or the Worldwide Guide to Homeschooling).

Many Christian parents feel that the public school system in this country is
contrary or even hostile to their Christian worldview and ethical system.
Some are concerned that the schools teach moral and philosophical relativism
and encourage immoral sexual practices. Others are concerned about a "re-
writing" of history that at best leaves out and at worst vilifies the
Christian Faith. Many are concerned that the overwhelming majority of
teachers and teaching materials come from atheistic or anti-Christian
perspectives, and that this necessariliy comes out during instruction,
whether the teacher intends it or not.

Not least among these worries is the concern over the teaching of evolution.
Many Christian parents feel that this teaching undermines the Christian Faith
and so is dangerous to their children's well-being.

As a science teacher in a public high school, I feel I should address this
issue. My view are somewhat different than those heard on either side, but I
believe that both sides have failed to get to the heart of the matter.

The Christian movement generally would like to see some form of "creationism"
taught side by side with evolution (although many would undoubtedly rather
see evolution altogether removed). Creationism takes many forms, but two
forms are most commonly involved in this debate. Young earth creationism
asserts that the earth is 5-10,000 years old, and all life forms were created
during a six day period. The intelligent design movement does not make any
assertions about the age of the earth, but simply contends that evolutionary
processes as commonly taught cannot account for the complexity of the natural
world, which appears to be intelligently designed.

The education establishment claims that these forms of teaching are
not "science." And therefore do not belong in the science classroom along
side of evolution, which is scientific.

For the purpose of this discussion, I want to lay aside, for the moment, the
question of whether intelligent design or young earth creationism is science.
Instead, I want to focus on what I consider to be a more fundamental and
important issue.

I believe that the schools teach philosophical materialism (“The theory that
physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought,
feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical
phenomena (American Heritage Dictionary, 1994)”) and naturalism ("The system
of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural
causes and laws without attributing moral, spiritual, or supernatural
significance to them (American Heritage Dictionary, 1994.)").

In science class, students learn that there are physical causes acting on
physical objects, and these form a closed system of cause and effect (see
Rock and Window? and Evidence?). This "naturally" implies atheism or, at
best, deism. If plant stem elongation is caused by gibberellic acid, if tides
are caused by the moon, if chemical reactions are caused by electromagnetic
forces, then what place for God? If atoms and the forces that hold them
together and act between them form a closed system of cause and effect, then
what need for God? If the universe is a grand agglomeration of tiny billiard
balls, or a great machine, chugging along with not need or even room for
direct interaction with anything outside, then we don't need evolution to do
away with God. All we need is physics! We are left with, at most, the
clockmaker god of the deists. At best, His activity is pushed to back to the
big bang or to the fringes in miracles (see a related debate on
debatingchristianity.com: god-of-the-gaps).

Is it possible to teach science without teaching materialism and naturalism?
The educational establishment would respond with an emphatic "No!" Why?
Because their definition of science includes naturalistic presuppositions
(see also the NSTA official statement on the Nature of Science). Such an
approach demands that the scientist engage in methodological naturalism
(click the link for Part one of Plantinga's article, click here for the
second part), which is "acting" as if naturalism were true while doing
science. If a school teacher teaches science in this way, does it not
forcibly suggest the truth of naturalism to his/her students?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the NSTA's position. Perhaps they do not
really mean "naturalistic" in its full philosophical meaning, but are only
implying that scienitists do not invoke miracles (extraordinary actions of
God). However, this does not seem likely, judging by the content of their
letter to the Kansas Board and their related press release . At the very
least, they should clarify their definitions of natural and supernatural.

Regardless of the intent of the NSTA, it is a fact that the vast majority of
texts and teachers come from a naturalistic perspective, as mentioned
previously. They practice methodological naturalism.

Even if the teacher were careful to emphasize that he/she was engaging in
methodological naturalism, the implication to the student is that there is no
need for anything else.

I suspect that many reading this now will have had the same thought: if
methodological naturalism works, then why invoke a God at all? As I noted
before, this implies deism, at best, and probably suggests atheism to most.

Is it possible to do science without naturalistic presuppositions? I believe
it is possible. What we have to do is change our way of thinking. We have all
been raised with a fundamentally naturalistic worldview: that the world can
basically take care of itself, run on its own, like a clock. Rocks break
windows, etc. What we need to do is to change our perspective to the Biblical
model of causation.

The world functions in an orderly way because God is an orderly God, and that
is how he acts. When we observe the orderliness of natural phenomena, we are
observing the orderliness of God's actions. I can go about my scientific
experiments in exactly the same way without any naturalistic assumtions.

Assuming the orderliness of nature and assuming naturalism are two very
different things.

If I study the motions of the planets in order to describe and predict them,
am I doing science? What if, as I do this, I see the planets as moving
according to the will of God, and I view gravity (or the curvature of spoace,
if you will)as an expression of His will? Then am I doing science? Must I see
the planets as operating apart from any divine influence in order ot
be "doing science" when I observe and measure their positions? My activities
would be identical in both cases. The difference would be in my perspective
and underlying philosophy.

But would there be a difference in my teaching? With respect to the methods
of science, no. With respect to the concepts, yes. The methods, as I
mentioned above, are the same in both cases. The concepts, however will
differ. The science teacher who assumes that naturalism is an integral part
of science will insist on describing the processes of nature in naturalistic
terms of physical cause and effect. he will be implicitly teaching
philosophical naturalism to his students.

The science teacher who does not assume naturalism will not speak of cause
and effect without qualification. Apparent cause and effect must be spoken of
as nothing more than correlation between events.

Thanks,
Received on Tue Jan 3 13:31:19 2006