Must We Read Only Christian Authors for Science?

I frequently receive the following question or some form of it, so I thought it might be time to answer it here.

I would like to know about the Christian content in your science guides and the books they accompany. Please share a bit about your philosophy in this area and how that philosophy plays out in your science guides.

The first thing you need to know is that I am a Christian. I know that my salvation was possible only because of my Lord’s love for me, with precisely zero effort or deserving on my part.

The next thing you need to know is that while I am amazingly grateful for Christian authors and publishers who focus on the field of science, having “Christian” stamped on the cover does not tell me what I need to know about a book.

What I do need to know about a book is this:

Is it a living book? It is our children’s due to be provided material that is living. No sawdust should be provided, no matter who published it. What good is it to offer a Christian text that does not cooperate with the divine Spirit? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose? Charlotte Mason said it plainly,

The mind is capable of dealing with only one kind of food; it lives, grows and is nourished upon ideas only; mere information is to it as a meal of sawdust to the body; there are no organs for the assimilation of the one more than of the other. (Mason, A Philosophy of Education, p. 105)

A textbook is a textbook is a textbook. And textbooks don’t inspire. Even if they are written by a young earth Christian publisher or a Christian publisher who doesn’t adhere to a “literalistic model of the earth.” Even if they claim to have one author or they claim to keep the textbook small and manageable. (I’ll have to write another blog about when a textbook is a living textbook. I’ll give you a hint: a textbook is always a textbook.)

Is it inspiring? This world we live in — with its butterflies and stem cells, laws and slime, hydrocarbons and wildflowers — is GOD’s world! If we required our kids to study the Bible using a format that left them uninspired or hating the subject, wouldn’t we stop and consider what we were doing wrong? How, then, can we propose to study the world God made without caring if our children are inspired? That doesn’t mean they must all become scientists, but as Miss. Mason said, “Where science does not teach a child to wonder and admire it has perhaps no educative value.” (Mason, A Philosophy of Education, p. 224)

Does the author mock Christianity in any way? There is absolutely NO need for that. There have been books I’ve come across that were antagonistic towards Christian beliefs. I have one in mind that I had high hopes for, but there is no question about this. I will never use a book like that. It’s one thing for the author to be blind to God’s truth, but it’s another for them to mock His followers.

Is the author promoting an agenda? There was a time in history, say the early to mid-1900s, when the authors of good living science books didn’t push an agenda. They simply told about the plants or animals or the laws of physics and chemistry without any added commentary. Even in the few chapters that recounted the formation of the universe, they just plainly said what they thought and moved on. It’s pleasant to read these books because a student can learn about the world God created without the author’s opinions, which is good. After all, the parents should be the only ones to inform these ideas in their early years.

Or are they simply telling a version of events? Earth science books are often considered the most questionable because they always include a rendition of how the world was created. But do you know there are more than two ways of understanding creation: a seven-day material interpretation of Genesis 1 or a Darwinistic evolution after a big bang? There are 5-6 Christian theories on the origin of the earth. I am most comfortable skipping those chapters in a child’s early years. However, as they enter Form 3 (gr. 7-8), I think there is value in our children learning how much confusion there is on the topic–among believers and unbelievers alike. I hope that by exploring some of these ideas, your children may gather a more comprehensive understanding of the topic, giving them more opportunities to share God’s love or relate to their fellow brothers and sisters.

Furthermore, I’ve found that many seemingly secular science authors can’t wholly reject the idea that there is a Creator. For example, recently, I was reading a section of The Planets with a class of adult students. The author commented on the way the moon so perfectly fits in front of the Sun during an eclipse:

Is it an accident that the Solar System’s lone inhabited planet possesses the only satellite precisely sized to create the spectacle of a total solar eclipse? Or is this startling manifestation of the Sun’s hidden splendor part of a divine design? (Sobel)

The students, a group of parents, recognized how awe-inspiring the short reading was, even though the author started the chapter by stating that light in the Sun may journey for a million years before breaking out and finding its way to earth.

I have never been more in awe of God’s Creation than I was while reading that book. This idea is the most critical point, in my opinion. Great authors tell with the most beautiful and inspiring language about the world God made, causing us to marvel at His handiwork even though the one pointing to the splendor (the author) may not even know to Whom he is pointing. It’s like beautiful art made by a self-proclaimed atheist or beautiful poetry written by someone who doesn’t know the Creator of all things beautiful. But, in the end, every knee will bow.

Suppose we carefully avoid those who unknowingly point to His revelation because they speculate incorrectly about what it all means or how it all came to be. In that case, we might cause our kids to miss the revelation being offered.

Is the book either separating the intellectual and spiritual life of children or artificially cramming them together? Charlotte Mason’s 20 principle says,

We allow no separation to grow up between the intellectual and ‘spiritual’ life of children, but teach them that the Divine Spirit has constant access to their spirits, and is their Continual Helper in all the interests, duties and joys of life. (Mason, Towards A Philosophy of Education, p. xxix)

When we respond from a spirit of fear — fear that our child will not form a personal relationship with his Lord or fear that he will be misled and brainwashed by an unbeliever — we might make choices that overshoot that sweet spot, where we work in cooperation with the Holy Spirit to educate our children.

I recently read the first page of a Christian textbook, which explained that there are different kinds of knowledge: one is truth, revealed to us by God, and another is scientific law and theory. While this sounds reasonable enough, it’s not accurate. All truth is God’s truth, and “scientific laws” are God’s laws. Of course, sometimes we think we have a scientific law figured out when, in fact, we have it wrong. That doesn’t make God’s laws any less His. Let a child read just one science biography, and he will know how often scientists have gotten things wrong. Then, let him read current events about a new “proven scientific fact,” and he will understand that discernment is in order.

Charlotte Mason says that the attitude of parents and teachers “towards the great idea, great lesson, set for his age to grasp, is a vital part of the parents‘ preparation.” (School Education, p.159) She speaks in-depth about the great idea of her time, which was evolution, and how men responded to it. Either they were 1) triumphant that moral difficulties may be over, essentially eliminating the need for religion; or 2) they looked for a middle ground, a reconciliation between science and religion; or 3) they reputed evolution and nailed their colors to religion. (p.156) But Charlotte Mason clarified that we must “first of all settle it with ourselves that science and religion cannot, to the believer in God, by any possibility be antagonistic.” (p.156)

In Conclusion

These are the things I consider. Is it a textbook, or in any way mocking Christianity, or pushing an agenda? If so, it’s out. Is it inspiring and thought-provoking? Then I will consider it. That means you can count on the following from me:

• I do not always use books written by Christians. Sometimes they are not good. (I do hope that some of your children become beautiful science writers, though. That would be wonderful.)
• In Form 3 and up, I reference Bible verses and include articles from Christian authors where appropriate to remind students that it is their duty to form opinions rather than take their teacher’s opinions on as their own. (Their teacher is the author of the living book.) As the author of the study guide, I will never tell them what to think.
• Some public charter schools use my curriculum, so I offer a secular version in which I remove any Bible verses and links to Christian articles included in the regular copy. I have every hope and expectation that the children in those schools will be exposed to God’s power and beauty without my spelling it out in so many words. “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the Creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:19-20)
• As the author of the study guide, I will never tell your student what to think. Therefore, it doesn’t matter which of the 5-6 Christian theories on the origin of the earth I believe in.

I hope this gives you an idea of where I’m coming from. Of course, you may not agree, and that is fine. There are other options available. But I would warn that if you intend to follow a Charlotte Mason education, textbooks of any kind are a deal-breaker.

The ends of the earth stand in awe at the sight of your wonders.
(Psalm 65)