Perhaps we should teach both what
we know and what we don't know in all subjects, including science
and religion.
We are all eager to pass our knowledge
on to the next generation, so they can avoid making our mistakes
and can begin building where we left off. Surely that is a true
principle because we can see the great technological advances
in civilization by having done that. But is there also a need
to teach what we have not learned?
There is a well-known saying that
"It's not what I don't know that gets me in trouble, it's
what I know that ain't so." Are there things you learned
in science classes that you later discovered are just not true?
Are there things you learn in church that you later discovered
are just not true? When that happens, one's belief in science
or faith in religion can be shaken to the core. Is there a way
to prevent this confusion?
Education in Science
Let
me give you an example of what I mean from the realm of science.
Let's talk about a solid science like genetics, where experiments
can be done and results tested.
What did you learn in school about
dominant and recessive genes concerning blue eyes and brown eyes?
Well, in my high school science class we were taught that we inherit
one gene from each parent and that brown is dominant and blue
is recessive. If either or both genes are "brown" then
brown eyes result. Only if both are blue can one have blue eyes.
Is that roughly how you remember it?
Now ask yourself whether you believe
that to be true. When I asked that question to my wife, she rehearsed
that same story. Then I asked, "Do you believe that?"
After thinking for a moment, and apparently mentally reviewing
families she has known, she replied with some certainty, "No,
that just isn't true. I know families where both parents have
blue eyes and not all of the children have blue eyes."
Isn't that interesting. Apparently
she had never really taken the time to compare what she learned
in school to real life in that case. One brown-eyed child did.
He was disappointed in school not to learn why he had brown eyes
and both of his parents had blue, so he went on to do more experiments
in the field to discover why.[1]
According to recent articles on the internet, eye color is a subject
which is not understood in all its details.[2]
If that is the case, why didn't they teach me that in school?
To me this is a very serious question.
In classes designed to educate, clearly we want to teach what
we think we have learned. We want our children or students to
learn quickly the results of past experience in history and the
sciences, as well as skills such as reading, writing, math and
arts. Surely we don't want to have the teacher tell us that they
don't know anything and that we all need to start from scratch.
But just where is the correct balance between teaching what is
known and what is unknown?
Knowledge vs. Ignorance
I had the privilege to learn physics
from a series of books written by a master teacher and researcher,
Richard Feynman, who was a Nobel Laureate in that field. His text
is now a classic, but it was only used for one year at the University
of Utah and even then only in an honors class. But I was so glad
to be in that class.
In every chapter, he would explain
principles of physics in an exciting way where we were allowed
to discovered them ourselves to a large degree. But at the end
of each lecture, he would often explain the many facets of this
very field that were not understood. He challenged his students
to be the ones who would go forth and solve those very problems.
We were all inspired by Prof. Robert Kadesch, who taught our class
from that book, who likewise taught our class to think for ourselves
and explore new realms.
One student in that class was Alan
C. Ashton, who went on to invent the "musicational organ"
(connecting an organ to a computer to both play and write music)
for his PhD dissertation and later co-authored the WordPerfect
software that raised the bar for all word-processors.
Perhaps what might be the best approach
in all teaching would be to spend about 90% of the class time
teaching what is believed to be true, but then at least 10% of
the time inspiring students to continue on and learn specific
things that are just not understood. Perhaps we should all follow
Feynman's example.
Let's go back to the eye-color example.
The results of Gregor Mendel's experiments with peas were published
in 1866, but largely unrecognized until after 1900.[3]
He found that crossing purple-flowered peas with white-flowered
peas produced mostly plants with purple flowers, some with white,
but none in between. That result can be explained with the dominant-recessive
gene theory.
But if that is all that is taught
in school, the students think that the subject is all done, that
there is nothing more to be learned and there is no incentive
to do more experiments. How many years was it after that before
someone discovered that if you cross a red snap dragon with a
white one, the result is often pink? It is now more than a century
after Mendel, and we still don't have a clue about hazel eyes
or grey eyes.
My whole point is that if the class
had ended with the simple statement like, "While this theory
explains certain very simple cases and is often true, there are
still many problems which we do not understand, such as pink snap-dragons
and hazel eyes." If classes had explained our weaknesses
as well as our strengths, then we might have explained hazel eyes
long ago. Many of us have had a false sense of security about
what we know.
By the way, in defense of the teaching
of genetics, apparently the problem has been corrected to a large
degree. If you enter "genetic eye color" into a web
search engine you will find several articles that explain the
subject well and make it clear that we don't know all the answers.
One article is an ideal role-model for just what is proposed in
this article.[4]
My point is that I wish such teaching had been common a century
ago.
Levels of Ignorance
It appears there are various levels
of ignorance in science. Sometimes we have no clue at all how
something works, sometimes we have a pretty good scientific theory
that gets the right answer most of the time, and sometimes we
have a theory that has correctly predicted results in every experiment
performed.
For example, the theory that blue-eyed
parents have blue-eyed children works most of the time (as far
as I know) and if so, falls into the second category. I see no
problem with teaching it that way. On the other hand, if it turns
out that two white-blossomed peas always lead to white-blossomed
offspring, then that is the latter type of experimental result.
But it is still important to point out that while we are sure
of the experimental results, that does not mean the theory proposed
to explain the results is perfect.
It is also important to explain where even our most certain
knowledge stops and ignorance begins. For example, Sir Isaac Newton's
law of gravity when tested with experiments in the laboratory
has a 100% success rate as far as I know. That is wonderful, and
why we call it a "law" rather than a "theory."
But every law is effective only in
a certain domain. Whenever a principle in science is taught, it
would be wonderful to also explain the limitations on the experiments.
In the case of gravity, we could explain that we don't know if
this law applies to subatomic particles and subatomic distances,
or across intergalactic distances.
Moreover, I was appreciative of the
first teacher who taught me that we have no idea why Newton's
law works. That is, Newton did not explain exactly why the earth
and moon would somehow "know" how hard to pull on each
other, but only that we could calculate the acceleration of each
toward the other by using his equation.
Often the great steps in knowledge
have been taken by those who were either taught that we didn't
know it all, or who realized that what they had been taught was
inadequate. Such considerations led Albert Einstein to propose
a whole new theory of gravity.
Education in Religion
Could some of these ideas be used in
the teaching of religion? This is a touchier subject, but it appears
that many of the same principles definitely apply. There are things
we know, there are things we believe, and there are things that
we just assume are true because they "sound good" — but
they really are not true at all.
When listening to sermons being preached
in church, it can be instructive to question whether or not the
doctrine being taught is really true. Can you remember where it
says in scripture the point being taught? Has a living prophet
taught that concept? If so who, when, and where?
And again, might it be a good idea
occasionally to explain just what we do not know? Sometimes this
is easy, as in examples when the Lord has told us that some things
are not public information, such as the exact time of his Second
Coming (Matt. 24:36), or of the details of the fate of the sons
of perdition (D&C 76:44-47). Sometimes it is harder, as when
we have misunderstood a scripture because of a poor translation
or because we have confused a figurative meaning for a literal
or vice versa.
One solution to the question of correct
translation is to consult several translations. There are some
excellent tools for doing this, such as a book putting eight independent
translations of the New Testament side by side.[5]
False Teachings
Sometimes false teachings are not
a problem, because they might concern only some minor point of
doctrine, and when the point is clarified, no one is shaken up
much. But other points are deep and fundamental, and when one
becomes convinced that the doctrine is false, the person can lose
faith in the entire gospel, or even in God.
Let me give an example of the first
category. Have you ever heard it taught in church that Alma gave
a wonderful discourse in which he taught that faith is like a
seed, which will grow if it is planted in the heart and then nourished?
Now read that sentence again and ask yourself if that is true.
Is that what Alma taught? If not, then exactly what did Alma teach?
Is it important to get it right?
To me it is important enough to mention
here that it is not at all what he taught. He taught that the
word of God is like a seed to be planted in the heart,
not that faith is like a seed. Faith is exercised in planting
the seed and nourishing it (Alma 32:28-42), but it is the gospel
that we must plant in our heart. Now is that just a picky detail,
not worth clarifying? To me it makes a huge difference, because
Alma is apparently telling us both to study the scriptures and
also to listen to the word directly from the light of Christ in
our hearts. That calls for action on our part, and it is the faith
which leads us to perform that action. It is the same symbolism
that the Savior used in the parable of the sower (Mat. 13:3-23).
Speaking of parables, consider one
more example. How often have you heard it taught that Christ taught
in parables so that his hearers could better understand his meaning
by using examples familiar to them? Now, is that true? Is that
why he taught in parables? Actually we know that exactly the opposite
is true. He explained to his disciples that he used parables to
hide the deeper meaning from hearers so that they would
not understand (Mat. 13:10-15). Then he explained the meaning
to his apostles who also would not have understood otherwise (Mat.
3:18-23).
Edges of Knowledge
Some areas of religion raise questions that nearly all would
agree are unknown because they just are not explained in the scriptures,
or the translation is uncertain. For example, exactly what were
the stones in the breastplate of the high priest of ancient Israel,
and what tribe of Israel did each represent? The ancient names of
the stones are listed in the scriptures, but the translation of
at least some of the names has not been certain.
When was the Savior born? When was
he baptized? When did he resurrect? When was the Great Deluge?
The dates of the first two of those events are not given in scripture.
The dates of the last two are given, but in a system that has
been ambiguous to us. All of these are questions that have seemed
worth researching to me.[6]
Of course there are many other areas of research just crying to
be done, but students need to be guided into knowing where to
work. One man wrote a whole book trying to find the actual graves
of all of the original twelve apostles.[7]
True Doctrine
And now consider the reverse. We
have been admonished that when we teach in church, we should stick
to what is in our lesson manuals and when we speak in Sacrament
meeting we should teach doctrine we know to be true. And when
we do know it is true, it helps at least some listeners to know
why we know it. Quote the words of the prophet! Quote the scriptures!
Quote those General Conference talks!
One thing that has frustrated me
in many church classes is the teacher who loves a wonderful discussion
and asks the class their opinion of the meaning of some doctrine.
About ten different responses are listed on a chalkboard. Now
that may all be fine and often generates interest, but then I
expect the teacher to conclude the discussion by telling us the
correct answer by quoting what the prophets have indeed said on
the subject.
There are many teachers who drop
the discussion there, perhaps not wanting to offend someone who
gave an incorrect response. But we have come to church to learn
the true word of God, to have it planted in our hearts, not to
see the confusion demonstrated by the variety of responses from
the class. Often the Church's official position is clearly stated
in the manual, but the teacher never mentions it.
My point here is that when we do
indeed know the truth, we should teach it with power and conviction,
and back it up with references to official sources.
Conclusion
In both science and religion, it
is this author's opinion that we should teach what we believe
to be true and carefully explain the basis for that belief. That
basis might be experiments in science and scriptures in religion,
but in both cases the student will know why the teacher is convinced
and can then make better informed decisions on whether or not
he believes it. It is also suggested that the teacher also spend
about a tenth of the class time in explaining what is not understood
about this subject and hence inspire the student to do research
to discover unknown answers.
Notes
1. "Eye
Colors" at www3.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Omim/dispmim?227240.
2. For
example, "The Genetics of Human Eye Color," www.seps.org/cvoracle/faq/eyecolor.html.
3. "Mendel's
Genetics" at anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_1.htm.
4. The
following is precisely the type of honest education that should
inspire students. An introductory article on eye color genetics
closes with this explanation of what is not known, and an implied
challenge to discover why: "In humans three genes involved
in eye color are known. They explain typical patterns of inheritance
of brown, green, and blue eye colors. However, they don't explain
everything. Grey eye color, Hazel eye color, and multiple shades
of blue, brown, green, and grey are not explained. The molecular
basis of these genes is not known. What proteins they produce
and how these proteins produce eye color is not known. Eye color
at birth is often blue, and later turns to a darker color. Why
eye color can change over time is not known. An additional gene
for green is also postulated, and there are reports of blue eyed
parents producing brown eyed children (which the three known genes
can't easily explain [mutations, modifier genes that supress brown,
and additional brown genes are all potential explanations])."
from "How are human eye colors inherited?" at www.athro.com/evo/gen/inherit1.html.
5. For
example, Eight Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton,
Ill.: Tyndale House, 1974).
6. Pratt,
John P., "Twelve
Sons, Twelve Constellations," Meridian Magazine
(13 Jul 2005); "Twelve
Sons, Twelve Stones," Meridian Magazine (3 Aug
2005); "Passover:
Was it Symbolic of His Coming?" The Ensign 24,
1 (Jan, 1994), pp 38-45; "Astronomical
Witnesses of the Great Flood," Meridian Magazine
(13 Aug 2003); and "The Restoration of Priesthood Keys on
Easter 1836, Part 1: Dating the First
Easter," Ensign 15, No. 6 (June, 1985).
7. McBirnie,
William S., The Search for the Twelve Apostles, (Wheaton,
Ill.: Tyndale House, 1973).
