In my previous message about embracing our mission, I proposed some guidelines for staying true to the primary mission of providing practical help to Christian homeschool science teachers. I acknowledged that the only sure way to win people’s trust about our attitude and approach is to produce some actual content that they can peruse (reviews, essays, lessons, etc.). As they say, “Proof of the pudding is in the eating.” Our own ASA volunteers are in the same predicament as the general public in waiting for that proof.
Indeed, one volunteer has commented:
This project seems promising so far, although I also have a concern that the burden of “promoting” or normalization to so-called established or consensus science not run roughshod over these very important conversations among Christians. The establishment or consensus of anything in the sciences is in some sense provisional and has much to do with the relevant community of discourse in addition to the very profound dynamics of faith and reason. Consensus is very often a matter of who participates in the discussion.
Apparently, the meaning of established (consensus) science and its use as a standard are sources of some uneasiness. Let me try to explain my meaning in more detail and, hopefully, allay some fears you may have about this topic.
Established science deserves our respect.
The ASA is an affiliation of working scientists. We consider science to be a legitimate “way of knowing” about the physical world. We also recognize that science is a human process of discovery that is never complete (more on that below). Thus, taken as a whole, we regard the claims (theories) of established science to be our current best and most accurate description of the properties and behavior of creation.
For educational purposes, then, established science deserves to be esteemed as the standard. It is right for us to promote it as comprising the primary content of a good science curriculum. Indeed, before students can even possibly fairly entertain alternative hypotheses, they need to fully comprehend the evidence for established scientific theories.
Don’t mistake my meaning. “Established science” refers to proper scientific claims, not to widely accepted scientistic worldviews (scientism). One of the key ministries of ASA (to the church and to the scientific community at large) is to call attention to the proper boundary between these often-times commingled notions. We are an important voice for doing science as science. Also, remember that the ASA mission is to discuss the relationship of science to Christian belief. Thus, although we esteem the general scientific process (and the knowledge that comes from that, i.e., established science), we don’t pretend to have one precise answer for how that knowledge should be understood in relation to Christian belief. This means that we generally support established science (as science) but encourage critical evaluation of the worldviews espoused by its proponents and entertain a wide range of opinion about its implications for Christian theology.
Here’s one example: In my personal opinion, typical intelligent design (ID) hypotheses do not yet qualify as established scientific theories. As such, they do not merit being presented to students as if they are viable alternatives to well established mechanisms of biological evolution. To do so would be to short-circuit the scientific process by giving special attention to new, untested scientific claims. On the other hand, certain philosophical issues raised by ID hypotheses (including how science is done and how God interacts with creation) are appropriate topics for discussion. It would be appropriate for our reviewers to describe how particular textbooks represent ID with regard to these distinctions.
A precise definition is not necessary.
You’ll notice that I emphasized the word “personal” at the beginning of the ID example above. Almost certainly some of you do not share my particular views on that subject. Perhaps you recognize that we cannot agree on exactly what qualifies as “established science”, or maybe you do not accept particular established scientific theories even if you do recognize them as being the current consensus view.
Fortunately, I think these are not causes for concern with regard to our purposes in this HSR project. It is sufficient that we recognize generally what “established science” means. It should not bother us that we cannot define it precisely. And it is not really necessary that each of us affirms every claim of established science. All that matters is that we have a generally high level of confidence in the scientific process overall. That is what I mean by “esteeming” established science and “holding it in high regard”.
In the ID example, it is adequate for our purposes if our reviewers and commentators can provide some measure of objective description about the distinctions I noted (ID as scientific hypothesis vs. ID as a philosophical notion). Our aim is not to join sides in a cultural or scientific battle; our site will cease to be a source of practical help if it becomes anything like an open forum for debate. In a sense, our role is to be one step removed from the battle itself. Our reviews and resources will provide sufficient information to help parents to understand the “consequences” of curriculum choices they make and, if they desire, to supplement their teaching with materials of one kind or another. We are not choosing curriculum for them; they choose a commercial curriculum and they choose which supplements to incorporate. Our job is to provide accurate descriptions of existing curricula and of available supplementary materials so that parents are not surprised by the content of products they receive.
Another example is global warming. I would contend that CO2-mediated global warming and anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) are on the verge of becoming established scientific claims. Whether or not you agree with my assessment, I think you would agree with the following general recommendation: Students should learn about the evidence for global warming and why many scientists rightly regard it with great concern; the fact that this has not reached complete consensus (especially with regard to proposed solutions) should be acknowledged. Our reviews should support that general educational goal. Beyond that, our reviews would be right to critique and describe how particular curricula are excessively strident on one side or the other of this issue. Armed with that sort of information, parents will be able to make informed decisions.
You need a ruler if you want to measure something.
Our overall goal is to assist parents in providing their students with a better science education. Our primary strategy is to inform, and that has two components: (1) to accurately describe curricula that already exist (so that parents can make comparisons), and (2) to develop and suggest practical resources for improving upon existing curricula by correcting errors, filling gaps or extending discussions in relation to Christian faith and practice.
This does not so much mean normalization in the sense of reducing everything to a single denominator. In a more important sense, it means “highlighting” differences by comparison to a single standard. Even to the extent that established science is the sort of standard we should strive for (vs. merely compare to), our goal should be to exceed the standard. In that sense, we should not be satisfied merely to uphold established science but to provide the resources necessary to understand the meaning of science; that includes education about the limits and tentative nature of science and the scientific process. Thus, to whatever extent we esteem established science, it would come with ample discussion about what it is, why it is, and how it ought to be understood. “Established science” is thus the starting point or launching pad for intelligent conversation.
Some bias is inevitable…and appropriate.
The same volunteer also wrote:
In pursuing a “broader view” or expanding the conversation for our intended audience, we must be careful not to simply establish a fort on the other side of the battle line some have already drawn. It would be tragic if over time the HSR project represents little more than the “standard scientific view” in contrast to the “standard Christian view.” Doing so would run the risk of driving away the very audience we hope to engage.
As I mentioned earlier, our desire is not to join sides in a battle…but neither is it our prime directive to be entirely neutral. We can’t possibly maintain a completely neutral position without expending all our energies on that alone, and it would be unrealistic to think that we could please everyone even if we attempted to do so. Remember that our target audience is not simply Christian homeschoolers but rather Christian homeschoolers who seek perspectives and aids that are not already generally available to them.
Communicating that we have a bias for established science (and Christian perspectives that attempt to reconcile to it) will endear greater trust from our readers than the dubious claim that we have none. It will also create much less confusion than letting all competing views have an equal voice. Indeed, our position provides a relatively objective foundation for effectively “challenging” (and therefore informing about) the quality and assumptions of nearly every resource that exists. Parents will learn where typical Christian textbooks balk at well-established scientific theories. And, because we support a Christian worldview and education about the limits and meaning of science, parents will learn where secular (and Christian) authors reach beyond established science because of philosophical (or religious) assumptions.
Thus, it is right for us to recommend materials that effectively teach the content of established scientific theories, and it is appropriate for us to give lower “ratings” to materials (at least the portions thereof) that disparage, balk, bypass or over-reach established scientific claims. We should endeavor to explain the evidence for established scientific claims so that learners can appreciate the weight of it, but we must not feel any compulsion to defend established science against all possible alternatives (regardless of their popularity in Christian circles). To do so would give undue attention to fringe scientific hypotheses (i.e., views which have not yet earned the approval of even a significant minority of qualified secular or Christian scientists).
This bias in favor of materials that seriously engage the claims of established science will manifest itself most in the “Curriculum Supplements” section of our website. There, we will devote most of our attention to developing and providing lessons, guides and helps that support this position. (There are numerous websites that represent competing perspectives, so we needn’t waste our energies in other directions). This does not mean that we will be dogmatic about any one Christian view. We can be honest about the difficulties inherent in reconciling science (especially certain claims such as evolution) with Christian worldviews. And we can allow a variety of Christian perspectives to be articulated as possible options for consideration.
Well, this post didn’t turn out to be as much about providing examples as I anticipated when I started writing it. Nevertheless, I hope that it has clarified the value of established science as a general standard, and that it has allayed some fears about what that might mean in practice. In the next posts, I’ll focus on the template or format of review pages. This should address some of the remaining questions on this topic.