Dr. Korcok on the teaching of Science (Part 2 of 3)

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents here) in a short series reviewing Dr. Thomas Korcok's 2011 CPH book on Lutheran Education. — In this segment, we review Korcok's position on the place and importance of science in the curriculum. This is certainly a topic of importance today, with the stress on "STEM" education: Science, Technology, Engineering, Math. I was trained in this field as an Engineer. But I lost my Christian faith because the LC-MS teachers allowed "Science" (falsely so called), to rule over the Bible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Science in the curriculum (p. 233-235, 270-272):

      This subject is uppermost in many people's minds primarily because of the importance placed on it by modern pedagogues. But who would deny that the teaching of Evolution, considered a "science", has taken over in public schools for over a century, yet Dr. Korcok makes no mention of it. So how does he write about the matter of science in the curriculum? We will come to that, but first we find that he essentially criticizes the "failings" of the Missourians: 

— p. 233, fn # 599: “There is some debate as to how Luther regarded Copernicus’ theory.” [Korcok is attempting to soft-pedal Luther's view of Scripture over Science by stating it this way. See Part 7 of my Copernicanism series.]

— p. 233: “by the mid-nineteenth century, these [scientific] disciplines had come into their own. One could no longer speak of education in terms of the arts alone but of a combination of the arts and sciences. This presented a problem for Walther and the Missourian pedagogues.”

— p. 233-4: “Their [Missourians] own personal experiences with the sciences were minimal at best 601) (fn # 601: [Hermann] Sasse recognized this and believed that the epistemological understanding of the Missourians suffered accordingly.” [Korcok listens to Hermann Sasse against Walther and Lindemann. See this blog post documenting Prof. A. L. Graebner's knowledge of the natural sciences and medicine.]

— p. 234: “While Walther acknowledged that science was a legitimate discipline and that true science was in no way opposed to true religion, it was clear that he regarded it as secondary to the arts [Der Lutheraner, vol. 6 (1950), p. 161]: 

‘All science, insofar as it is man’s own product, is just for this world and not for the next life. It knows no way to God and gives no true information about the world beyond.’” 

[If only Dr. Korcok would take Walther's words to heart, and treat of science as Walther does!]

— p. 234-5: “Educators such as [J. C. W.] Lindemann, who had not attended a classical gymnasium, appear to have had a better grasp [better than Walther?] of the value of science, but even that was limited.605): (605 In Schul-Praxis, Lindemann devoted a chapter to the teaching of science in the Lutheran classroom in which he argued that the teacher should strive to show the harmony that exists between nature and the Bible. J. C. W. Lindemann, Amerikanisch-Lutherische Schul-Praxis (St. Louis: Lutherischer Concordia-Verlag, 1888), 208 ff.)” [Korcok ridicules the harmonizing of nature and the Bible! But even he praises this type of harmonizing when Luther included history and music to provide "insight into the nature and wisdom of God". — How would Lindemann respond to Dr. Korcok's lack of caution in the integration of science with arts which include matters of religion:

“Woe to every teacher who misuses the doctrine of nature only to upset a child: to sow in his heart conceit and unbelief, arrogance and doubtfulness. Only ignorance and malice find a contradiction between the Bible and nature; enlightened reason sees the most beautiful, most wonderful harmony.”                                                  — J. C. W. Lindemann (Am.-Luth. Schul-Praxis, p. 210)

— p. 234-5: “In 1873, over three hundred years after Copernicus published his heliocentric theory, Lindemann wrote a paper arguing that the theory was to be rejected as it contradicted Scripture.606) (606 J. C. W. Lindemann, “An Astronomical Debate…,” (St. Louis: Synods of Missouri, Ohio, and other States, 1873).” [Korcok earlier calls Lindemann’s “grasp of the [high!] value of science “limited”.]

— p. 250: “The study of science was another area that caused the Missourians difficulty. They seemed [“seemed”?] unsure as to how this emerging discipline might be incorporated into primary education.” [The Missourians had "difficulty' and were "unsure".]

      Where are there any warnings about the encroachment of Science against the authority of Holy Scripture? They seem not to be found in this book. But Luther railed against Erasmus and his "science" in a letter to Amsdorf. Korcok skirts this and only focuses on "the melding of the liberal arts, particularly the lower three arts of the trivium, with an Evangelical catechetical program".

      How does Dr. Korcok differ from Walther and the Missourians? He proposes to return to the "epistemological assumptions upon which the liberal arts rest." (p. 271) What is this? A "long-standing tradition that all truth was of divine origin, and the study of the classic works of literature" which "led to a fuller understanding of the divine Author of truth." His example is Luther's call for a study of history and music. What is missing from this is an adherence to the authority of Holy Scripture: "Thy Word is Truth", John 17:17. What does the Apostle Paul teach Timothy? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding… oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Tim. 6:20) While Scripture is only warning against "science falsely so-called", yet science, a human endeavor, is highlighted as a subject to be careful of — just as the Missourians were. Dr. Korcok could have made a much stronger case for his assertion if he had included the authority of Holy Scripture in his narrative. We see further evidence of his weakness in the concluding Part 3.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table of Contents: Part 1: Intro, Catechesis; Part 2: Science; Part 3: "Biblicism", Melanchthon, Papacy