# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S228
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

228

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

so that students learn to think for themselves. Precisely because Christians
have a place to stand outside of this world, they can be all the more objective
in assessing the world’s ideas. Standing on Christ and His Word, we do not
need to make a scientific theory into a surrogate religion, nor do we have to
dismiss it without a due consideration of its benefits for understanding God’s
world and serving our neighbor.
An exemplary approach here is for science teachers to present controversial ideas by way of teaching the controversy itself. That is, in addition to laying
out an idea and its implications, students should be encouraged to learn the
best arguments that can be given for and against it. This helps students to see
that their options are not limited to blank acceptance or rejection of a scientific
idea, but it also teaches good critical thinking. Religious and philosophical
commitments will always shape our understandings of the world, a fact for
which Christian students need not apologize and from which no student or
scientist can escape. At the same time, all students, including Christians, will
profit by developing the discipline of careful, honest, reasoned inquiry when
assessing data and scholarly arguments.
In this way, teachers can assist students in combating erroneous and
irrational claims about the authority of scientific ideas that derive from some
highly questionable sources, such as the increasing politicization of science
and the influence of non-scientific rhetoric in the popular science media. It
is sometimes assumed that an idea should be accepted simply because it has
been labeled “science”—for example, when we hear sweeping (and often
contradictory) assertions that “science shows” what we should (and should
not) eat and what is (and is not) good for our health. Science teachers should
caution their students to investigate whether there is any supporting data for
such claims, how strong it is, and whether there is other research pointing in
the same or a different direction. More generally, they should remind their
students that scientific claims to have established something with great certainty should, like other human claims, be considered carefully and examined
critically.
In presenting a controversial issue—for example, climate change—an
exemplary approach is to include the best arguments on all sides of the
controversy. Students should be acquainted with the various reports of the
United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They
should also be aware of some of criticisms of the claims made by the IPCC
and other scientists who accept anthropogenic climate change.313 It may also
be helpful for students to consider the practical implications of the debate,

such as cost-benefit analyses of both failing to act to abate rising temperatures
on one side and aggressive abatement measures on the other.
For example, Bjorn Lomberg, who accepts anthropogenic climate change,
argues against diverting vast amounts of money to climate abatement measures, because of a low likelihood of success, negative economic impact, and
the danger of chronic underfunding of measures to reduce suffering from
malaria, AIDS, and unsafe drinking water that have a solid track record.314
Such a perspective may help students to consider our global stewardship
obligations, rather than focusing on a single “hot topic.” This is helpful to
Christians because we need to reflect on the overall impact of our actions for
the welfare of our neighbors in present and future generations. An ideal situation is one in which students can hear out the best arguments on all sides of
the controversy, examine the relevant data, and develop an informed opinion
about which claims are best supported by the available evidence.
Certainly, evolutionary theory lends itself to a “teach the controversy”
approach that would help students to sift empirical science from ideology
and consider the best arguments for and against various evolutionary claims.
By focusing on how scientific claims can be confirmed or tested, and showing
the relative strengths and weaknesses of various ideas, this approach to science education helps students to see the fallibility and limitations of scientific
claims and arguments and has the clear educational objective of promoting
critical thinking and objectivity.
For example, students will benefit from supplementing a full and accurate presentation of modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and its
supporting evidences with a thoughtful critique by credentialed scientists.315
It is also very helpful for science educators to consider the insights of leading
philosophers of science. Christian science teachers do their students a great
service when they point out how different the data can look from the perspective of different fundamental assumptions about how science operates and
what it allows. Even if it is not possible to pursue such discussions in class,
educators can at least advise students of the existence of dissenting opinions
and make them aware of good materials they can consult on their own time.

4. Investigators
Scientists working at universities, government agencies, and private
companies should be encouraged toward deep reflection on the vocation of
scientist. It is invaluable to spend time considering how great Christian scien-

313
The 2014 report of the IPCC is available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/. There is
also significant literature by scientists who are unconvinced by the claims of the IPCC and others. For example, see Lawrence Solomon’s The Deniers, rev. ed.(Minneapolis: Richard Vigilante
Books, 2010). It is important to note that science, like other academic pursuits, including theology, is often motivated and influenced not only by the pursuit of truth but also by questions of
funding, political trends, pressure from peers, and other factors.

315
Again, there is a vast literature, but some excellent recent sources are: Behe, The Edge of
Evolution; Meyer, Signature in the Cell (New York: HarperOne, 2009); and Darwin’s Doubt (New
York: HarperOne, 2013).

129

130

tists conceived of their work in previous centuries. Even more vital is the need
to recapture the idea that the Bible deeply affirms science as a God-pleasing
contribution to our primary vocation of stewardship, and to encourage
scientists to delight in their work as they read God’s book of nature. As we
have seen throughout this report, there are many reasons why thoughtful
Christians should want to pursue science as means of glorifying God and
serving their neighbor. The eminently practical nature of most scientific work
is worth emphasizing. On a daily basis scientists and scientific discoveries
help sick people to recover, provide comfort and relief from pain, facilitate
healthy and abundant food production, contribute to functional and comfortable living and working spaces, enable speedy and safe transportation,
identify criminals (while exonerating others), explore mysteries of space and
time—and countless other examples of human betterment. These scientific
advances are not simply of technical or theoretical value—they actually serve
human beings, people loved and created by God.

maximum funding and fame, it is not surprising that the scientific vocation
is corrupted.

In addition to historical reflection on the dignity of the scientific enterprise, scientists will be enriched by deep theological reflection on the nature
of the scientific task. How is science affected by the fact that the world is a
creation of God? What difference does it make to scientific investigation that
scientists themselves are made in the image of God? How does the fall impact
the faculties of the scientist? How do we find that middle way, discussed in
chapter 2, between excessive modesty and unwarranted pride?
One helpful issue to consider is the way the nature of vocation defines
important moral parameters for scientific work. Every vocation exists to serve
the neighbor and is bound by God’s moral law. In addition, because each
vocation has a distinct place within God’s economy (it defines a particular
contribution to the social and moral order), it has special privileges and special responsibilities. Thus the brain surgeon has the special privilege of doing
invasive brain surgery and the special responsibility of doing so in constructive ways. More generally, due to their expertise, scientists are authorized to
do things that non-scientists (or scientists with different gifts and training)
are not authorized to do; but they also have special responsibilities. Scientists
occupy important positions of trust: they are stationed by God to love and
serve their neighbor in ways that are beyond the ability of most of us.
As Christian scientists reflect on the moral issues that arise in their work,
it is important that they do not ignore the rich resources provided in Scripture and centuries of reflection on Christian ethics. Failure to do so makes it
very likely that secular standards of professional ethics will be uncritically
embraced as “best practices” within a given area of science. This shortchanges
scientists, who are not thereby motivated and encouraged by the understanding that theirs is a high and worthy calling to do good. And there is evidence
that a low, pragmatic view of science is bad for the scientific community
and those whom it serves. When scientific work is reduced to the quest for

131

2016 Convention Workbook

314
Bjorn Lomberg, The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 2007).

For example, in 2012, the Guardian newspaper published a series of
articles on the way science funding and university policies have conspired
to produce an epidemic of scientific fraud, including fabricated data, skewed
statistical analysis, and references to non-existent studies and journals:
A recent paper in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences shows that since 1973, nearly a thousand biomedical
papers have been retracted because someone cheated the system. That’s a massive 67% of all biomedical retractions. And the
situation is getting worse—last year, Nature reported that the
rise in retraction rates has overtaken the rise in the number of
papers being published.316
A major concern is that scientists are a community and each scientist
relies on the work of others. Fraudulent research may perpetuate false and
dangerous ideas, inhibiting scientific progress and encouraging risky procedures and treatments for human subjects and patients. Here it is important
to recover the idea that scientists are called to serve their peers and others by
following the highest standards of honesty and integrity in their work.
What is more, secular professional codes of ethics have not always had
a high view of the human beings that science affects. This is particularly
troubling in the medical sciences and other areas of human experimentation.
A Christian understanding of scientific vocation should bring with it a high
view of human dignity and value, and should guard against the cynical and
unbiblical view that some people are more valuable than others. Human
persons are more than biological, psychological, and sociological resources to
be valued only for their capacities and contributions to society. Rather, each
person is a priceless gift of God.
The general concern is that as human beings are increasingly used as
experimental subjects, they may be, consciously or unconsciously, reduced to
experimental material. In The Magician’s Nephew, C. S. Lewis voices this concern through the character of Uncle Andrew, and exposes the corrupt double
standard that can allow a scientist to exalt himself into an élite category while
reducing other human beings to objects of investigation. In the story, Uncle
Andrew tricks two children, Polly and Digory, into wearing magic rings that
transport them to a different world, even though he has no idea whether the
world will be safe and he is risking the children’s lives to satisfy his own curiosity. Uncle Andrew feels justified in this because he thinks scientists have a

316
Pete Etchells and Suzi Gage, “Scientific Fraud is Rife: It’s Time to Stand Up for Good Science,” The Guardian, Friday, November 2, 2012, available at: http://www.theguardian.com/
science/blog/2012/nov/02/scientific-fraud-good-science.

132