FASTLY - Faith & Science Teaching

Models of Adam & Eve

In Brief

This academically challenging activity is an adaptation of one also used in the Activity Map on The Drama of Creation. It looks at differences in interpretations of the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 in the early church. It helps students see that there have always been models involved in interpreting Scripture. It asks them to think about the implications of this, not only in terms of truth, but also in terms of how we respond to those with whom we disagree. Teaching FASTly includes both seeking truth and engaging graciously with differences. Students will look at passages from Augustine and Irenaeus and explore the differences and similarities between the two.

Goals

Students will understand that the Genesis creation account was interpreted using different representational models in the early church.

Students will reflect on how to respond to diversity in interpretation.

Thinking Ahead

Many of us in the West are raised with the implicit understanding that there is one model for understanding the creation and fall of humanity, and it was provided by St. Augustine. Particularly regarding Adam and Eve, Augustine understood this first couple to be fully mature in their spirituality, completely upright before God, and created wholly righteous before falling into sin and losing this original state of “perfection.”

However, the early church fathers did not always agree on how best to interpret Genesis 1-3 and other passages regarding creation and Adam and Eve. While all did emphasize that God the Father is “maker of heaven and earth,” as the Apostles’ Creed puts it, their view of how to interpret Scripture’s account of this event and the fall of Adam and Eve was varied.

This activity examines Augustine’s understanding of Adam and Eve alongside that of Irenaeus, which later influenced Eastern Orthodox perspectives about the first couple and their fall.

Related Book Review: Four Views on the Historical Adam by Denis O. Lamoureux, John H. Walton, C. John Collins, William D. Barrick, Gregory A. Boyd, Philip G. Ryken

Preparing the Activity

Needed:

• Copies of Adam and Eve

• An online, anonymous polling app like Socrative.com

Teaching the Activity

Review with students the role of models in understanding, as discussed in previous activities. Thinking about our mental models is important. It encourages us to be humble—our models might lead us to distort what we are seeing to make it fit our ideas. This type of thinking also calls us to a trusting process of seeking truth—without models to help us make sense of the text, we would not get far. Models help us see what is there to be seen, and their fallibility can keep us paying close attention to the text to see if they still function.

Tell students that they will engage in examining specific theological resources from the early church, with a focus on how models are involved in interpretation.

To begin this activity, take a poll of students on the question of Adam and Eve’s age—how old do students think they were in the Garden of Eden? If students are familiar with Sunday school picture-book depictions of Adam and Eve, as well as the description of their marriage in Genesis 2, answers will probably reinforce Augustine’s reading of Adam and Eve as mature adults.

Present students with the handout Adam and Eve, which contains sections of Augustine’s On the Literal Meaning of Genesis¹ and Irenaeus’s Against Heresies². Each highlights the respective theologian’s differing views of the spiritual maturity of Adam and Eve, and thus the reasons for their fall. Note that for Augustine, “literal” did not mean reading the text literally, as many might understand it today, but was related to attending closely to the letter of the text.

Have students silently read the text, looking for similarities and differences between the two understandings presented. Emphasize the practice of careful reading and respect for the details of the text. Ask students to:

• Circle text where there are differences between the two writers. (A key difference is Irenaeus’s view of Adam and Eve as child-like in their innocence, versus the Augustinian adult-like Adam and Eve.)
• Underline details that are highlighted by both Augustine and Irenaeus.

After this time of silent reading, read Genesis 1:26-3:12 aloud, and then spend some time on three areas of discussion:

• Comparing viewpoints:
  • What is shared and what is different? Draw out that Augustine focuses on how Adam, being made strong and perfect, could sin, while Irenaeus sees Adam as weak and immature, and growing toward a future perfection. Ask students to point to where this difference shows in the text.
  • Why are the two views different? What assumptions does each writer bring to the text? What model does each use to make sense of the text?
  • Which of the two views do you find more compelling? Why?
  • Is one of the views obviously wrong because of some easy-to-spot detail in the text?

• Relationship to the text:
  • Does the existence of different interpretations of key biblical passages and doctrines mean that “anything goes?” Draw students’ attention to how both Augustine and Irenaeus are constrained by the text; they are both trying to test their model against what the text actually says. There is a reality outside their model, to which they are accountable.

• Augustine argued that any interpretation of Scripture should build up faith, hope, and love:
  • Do either of these interpretations succeed or fail at this?
  • What might it mean to respond with faith, hope, and love to someone whose interpretation we disagree with?
  • Do you know or encounter people who have a different view of the creation story from yours? Does the way you view and respond to them reflect faith, hope, and love?

¹Augustine excerpts from The Literal Meaning of Genesis, from Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation, edited by Johannes Quasten, Walter J. Burghardt, and Thomas C. Lawler, translated by John H. Taylor, Copyright © 1982 by The Newman Press. Paulist Press, Inc., New York/Mahwah, N.J. Used with permission of Paulist Press. www.paulistpress.com

²Irenaeus of Lyons excerpts from Against Heresies, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.txt, text in the public domain.

Candle

In Brief

This activity¹ engages students in interpreting a “discrepant event” and distinguishing their observations from their inferences. It helps students see how scientific models can be based on observation, yet still be tentative and open to revision. Students will witness the teacher lighting a “candle,” and evaluate the differences between observations and inferences.

Goals

Students will be able to distinguish observations from inferences.

Students will examine how making inferences based on observations helps to show the ways that scientific knowledge models reality.

Thinking Ahead

As we have seen in the previous activities in this map, models are a standard feature of our thinking in the fields of science and theology. Models utilize one part of our experience as a kind of scaffolding to help us understand another.

Understanding the role of models in our thinking can help us consider the relationship of our knowledge claims to humility and trust. Models are just representations and can be revised, so our claims to know should be framed in humility. We should not claim more for them than they warrant. Since our models are based on encounters with reality, we can trust them, at least provisionally, to help us see what is there. Acknowledging that they are provisional need not plunge us into despair about our ability to know truth.

We see the world through models. This means that we do see the world, and that we see it in an indirect way that is mediated by models.

Preparing the Activity

Needed:

• A package of white cheese sticks (string cheese)

• A package of almond slivers (not slices)

• Multi-purpose lighter (Aim-n-flame) or matches

• A fire extinguisher or a cup of water

• Presentation slides in Candle

Directions:

Just before the lesson commences, prepare the “candle” by opening a cheese stick and inserting an almond sliver into the tip. Insert enough of the almond sliver so that a small portion of the sliver protrudes out of the cheese stick. This sliver acts as a wick in the false candle. You may want to light the “wick” for a brief time, as this makes it easier to ignite during the lesson itself. Prepping two different “candles” is helpful, in case one unexpectedly fails. The students should not see the “candle” until the lesson takes place, so hide it until after you have described to the class what you want them to do as part of the demonstration.

Teaching the Activity

Open the lesson by giving some basic directions to the class. Tell them that in just a moment, students will be shown a “phenomenon,” and as soon as they can see it, they should share what they notice about the “phenomenon.” Select a student to keep a record of observations shared by the class. You may want the student to keep a record of the class’s observations where all can see (e.g., a large whiteboard). The person recording observations should not make any interpretations of what is shared, but just capture what is volunteered by the class. Encourage the class to share observations as soon as they come to mind. A number of comments should be shared in a relatively short period of time.

When ready for the demonstration, go ahead and light one of the “candles.”

As soon as the oil in the almond sliver starts to burn, hold the “candle” for all to see, and tell students to share their observations. They often share observations like “light,” “burning,” “smoke,” “wax,” “wax melting,” and perhaps, “candle.”

After several observations are shared (and right around the time the “candle” looks to be burning out), blow out the “candle,” and ask a couple of follow-up questions:

• Predict what you think is going to happen over time. (Answers might include: “the candle is going to shrink” or “you’re going to get wax on your hand.”)
• When would you most likely use such a phenomenon? (Answers might include: “when the power goes out” or “at night.”)

The next step in the demonstration should be a dramatic one.

Ask students to put their eyes on you, and ask them if they have ever seen this phenomenon used in the following way: blow out the “candle,” if it is still burning, and with theatrical flair take a big bite out of it!

Enjoy the audience’s shocked reaction as you chew a couple of bites! Students immediately wonder what you just ate. You may have to tear apart the string cheese in order to convince the audience that you did not just eat a wax candle.

Next, move to a careful presentation of the distinctions between observations and inferences. An observation is often described as a careful description of an object or event based on information gained using a person’s five senses, such as hearing, smelling, or touching. Properties you could observe include: height, weight, color, sound, shape, smell, and amount. Examples of observations (included for optional presentation on a slide in Candle) include:

• The leaves on this tree are green in August.
• This apple is crunchy and sweet.
• Tonight’s dinner smells like baked meat loaf.
• Crystal’s hair is shorter than Annie’s hair.
• The red car crossed the finish line before the blue car.

Notice how each statement above does not include attempts to explain why or how. For instance, consider a change to the first statement. What if the statement read something like, “The leaves on the tree are green in August because of the presence of a green pigment called chlorophyll in the chloroplasts of certain cells”?

When interpreting or drawing a conclusion based on information gained through a person’s senses, the statement is an inference, rather than an observation.

Inference examples are included on the second slide in Candle.

• What was really observed in the edible candle demonstration?
• Where were we (likely unknowingly) drawing inferences?

Return to the recorder’s list of student comments (an example is shown in Slide 3 of Candle). This list typically contains comments like:

• Smoking
• Fire
• Burning
• Wax dripping
• Wax melting
• White object
• Cylindrical
• Wick at the top
• Candle

Work through this list with students, discussing where inferences were made, rather than pure observations. For instance, “wax dripping” or “melting” are claims as to the identity of the object, and thus, are inferences based on the object appearing to be a candle. Similarly, “smoke” is really an inference and not a pure observation. An observation would be something like, “I observed fine, gray particles originating from the top of the white object moving steadily upward toward the ceiling.” You could infer that this phenomenon is smoke, not steam.

To further practice the distinction between observations and inferences, use the included practice problems (Slide 4 of Candle). Help students see the difference between observation (e.g., “it is a blue object; there are black marks on the white surface”) and inference (e.g., “it is a blueberry; there are letters”).

Then ask students to write in their own words how they would distinguish between an observation and an inference. Ask them to provide three different pairs of examples showing an observation (e.g., “the pointed object leaves an inky line when dragged along the white paper”) versus an inference (e.g., “the object is a felt-tip pen”). It may be helpful to have pairs of students look at each other’s work to double-check the sets of examples.

In closing, use the questions on Slide 5 of Candle to discuss the following issues with students.

In everyday life, there doesn’t seem to be a pressing need to distinguish between an observation and inference, but in science, this careful distinction is helpful. As evidenced in the “edible candle” demonstration, this is challenging to do. We thought we were making observations, but we were mostly making inferences. There is really no such thing as a pure observation. There always seems to be a little inference in all of our observations:

• Do we really see an object or is it an illusion?
• Is it really blue or are we just offering a culturally specific term for our sense of how the light strikes it?

This activity helps us understand why all scientific models (and theories) are best viewed as just that: models. They move from observation to attempting to make sense of observation by building models. Models are durable, but always pending, and best viewed as subject to revision.

Some might fear scientific models are useless, given any sort of tentativeness or lack of complete certainty. Others would claim that you could not treat scientific knowledge with integrity unless you accurately understand science as model-making. Use the questions to help students see that admitting that inferences and models are tentative and open to revision does not mean giving up on truth, but respecting it. It is seeing that there is a reality to which our models are answerable, but that we should not claim too much for our models of it. Knowing the truth requires that we cultivate the humility needed to give up familiar half-truths. This important distinction is further presented in the activities Pop Can Implosion and Observations, Inferences, Models.

¹This activity is adapted by its author from copyrighted material in Learning & Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Research and Applications by James Jadrich and Crystal Bruxvoort (NSTA Press, 2011). Used by permission.

Pop Can Implosion

In Brief

This is an activity¹ intended to dive deeper still into the distinctions between observations and inferences. These distinctions are explored via a common classroom demonstration, where a pop can suddenly implodes, which helps students see how this relates to humility.

Goals

Students will distinguish observations from inferences.

Students will examine the degree of certainty we often associate with observations versus inferences.

Students will consider the consequences (e.g., false certainty) of mistaking our inferences for observations.

Thinking Ahead

Understanding the role of models in our thinking can help us consider the relationship of our knowledge claims to both humility and trust. Models are just representations and can be revised, so our claims to know should be framed in humility. We should not claim more for them than they warrant. Since our models are based on encounters with reality, we can trust them, at least provisionally, to help us see what is there. Acknowledging that they are provisional need not plunge us into despair about our ability to know truth.

The need to practice humility is particularly clear when something that we had taken to be obviously true is challenged, and we have to consider whether we assumed too much. This activity uses a combination of drawing students into experiencing that situation (like the activity Candle), and providing some reflective distance by focusing on the experience of another student who was faced with the need to revise an observation. It seeks to engage students in empathizing with another student’s thought process, then connecting the resulting choices to the virtue of humility and considering how this is related to their own thought processes.

Consider how often your teaching practices encourage these kinds of connections.

Preparing the Activity

Needed:

• Aluminum pop can, emptied of soda

• Tongs for handling the heated pop can

• Hot plate

• Tap water, 10-15 mL

• Masking tape

• Water bath containing cold water

• Gloves for high and low temperatures

• Proper eye protection via safety goggles

• Presentation slides in Pop Can Implosion

Directions:

Safety precautions:

• Be careful due to high temperatures in this demonstration.
• Be careful of the hot can and the release of steam created by heating water in the can.
• Wear goggles and protective gloves throughout the demonstration.

Teaching the Activity

Review the following point from the activity Candle: in everyday life, there does not seem to be a pressing need to distinguish between an observation and an inference. This distinction is often difficult to make. If there is so much confusion, and if it is so difficult to differentiate an inference from an observation, then why try to do so? It is useful to do in science. There are times when we need to specify “observation” and times when we need to specify “inference.”

Consider a demonstration involving the imploding pop can to help illustrate differences between observations and inferences. The basic steps in this procedure are the following:

1. Obtain an empty aluminum pop can, some tongs, a hot plate, and a small tub of cold water. Use masking tape to reduce the size of the hole in the can by about 50 percent.
2. Pour about 10 or 15 mL of tap water into the pop can, and begin heating it on the hot plate.
3. Position the container of cold water next to the hot plate.
4. Heat the can until the water inside boils and completely fills the can with water vapor. (You will know this has occurred when you see steam rising from the can.) Give sufficient boiling time to ensure that the can is completely filled with water vapor, but do not let all the water boil away.
5. Grasp the middle of the can with tongs and, in one quick and smooth motion, invert the open end of the can into the container of cold water. Observe what happens. (The can rapidly implodes!)

Perform this demonstration for students and ask them to write down in a sentence or two what they observed. Then display Slide 1 of Pop Can Implosion, which shows what a previous student wrote as an observation after being shown the demonstration:

The can cooled down on the inside when immersed in the cool water and then the sides of the can were sucked in.

Ask students to identify any part of this sentence where the student is offering an inference, rather than an observation.

Indeed, the can did implode—the sides collapsed—but were the sides pushed in or sucked in? Present this question to the class. Ask them to share their ideas in small groups, and then bring the group back together to share further.

When students are ready, you can share with them the accepted scientific explanation of what occurred in this demonstration.

When water vapor inside the can cools considerably after placement in cold water, water vapor in the can condenses. The loss of water vapor (gas) particles inside the can significantly reduces the pressure inside the can (internal pressure). Review with students how the can also experiences external pressure, due to surrounding air particles colliding with the can.

After the can is immersed in the cool water and condensation occurs, the external pressure is now much greater than the internal pressure, and the sides of the can are pushed in (not sucked in).

Return to the past student’s observations—especially the statement that the “sides of the can were sucked in.”

How does an observation differ from an inference? Stating that “the can’s sides were sucked in” was an inference, rather than an observation.

Ask students to review their own observations:

• Did they contain any inferences?
• Should anything be revised in light of the discussion?

Finally, ask students to imagine confronting the student who wrote the observation about the sides of the can being sucked in. The student wrote down what he believed he saw. What are some ways in which this student might react if told that this observation contained an important inference, and that this inference was mistaken?

Ask students to suggest a range of possible reactions to being told that they are wrong about something that seems obvious to them, and discuss which of these reactions might fit best with false pride or the virtue of humility.

Optional Extra

Have students engage in further experimental activities and record observations, and then work together to examine their observations for possible inferences in the guise of observations.

¹This activity is adapted by its author from copyrighted material in Learning & Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Research and Applications by James Jadrich and Crystal Bruxvoort (NSTA Press, 2011). Used by permission.

Observations, Inferences, Models

In Brief

This activity¹ builds on the activity Pop Can Implosion and engages students in exploring its implications further. Using the example of student observation from the previous activity, students will delve deeper into the differences between observation and inferences.

Goals

Students will understand how too much trust in our inferences and models can lead away from truth.

Students will understand why the tentative nature of models and inferences is a necessary part of science.

Thinking Ahead

This activity reviews themes that have run through preceding activities. It invites students to relate models and inferences to scientific knowledge and to themes such as pride, humility, love of truth, and the willingness to exercise faith and trust in the absence of complete certainty.

Considering the role of models in our thinking can help us consider the relationship of our knowledge claims to both humility and trust. The need to practice humility is particularly clear when something that we had taken to be obviously true is challenged, and we have to consider whether we assumed too much.

Consider how often your teaching practices help students make big-picture connections of this kind, and how often students are left to figure out for themselves what to trust, and how much faith to place in what they think they know.

Related Book Review: God in the Lab: How Science Enhances Faith by Ruth Bancewicz

Preparing the Activity

Needed:

• Presentation slides in Observations, Inferences, Models

Teaching the Activity

Display Slide 1 of Observations, Inferences, Models and review with students what a previous student wrote as an observation, after being shown the pop can implosion demonstration (Pop Can Implosion):

The can cooled down on the inside when immersed in the cool water and then the sides of the can were sucked in.

Check that students can still identify which parts of this were observation, and which were inference, and why the inference was problematic. Tell students that they are going to think a little further about why the distinction between observation and inference might be important. In particular, they are going to consider two problems that might arise if we do not pay attention to it.

Review with students why the current scientific view would regard the inference that the sides of the can were “sucked in” as mistaken. (When water vapor inside the can cools, water vapor in the can condenses. The loss of water vapor—gas—particles inside the can reduces the internal pressure. The can also experiences external pressure, due to surrounding air particles colliding with the can. The external pressure is now much greater than the internal pressure, and the sides of the can are pushed in.)

Ask students if they can identify any broader scientific models that are being used to offer this explanation. Explain that a model arises when our inferences become systematized to provide a more coherent picture that can help guide future investigation.

Elicit that the explanation relies on models of gases and liquids as made up of particles, of differences in pressure and their effects, and of the effects of cooling on water vapor.

Ask students how they think these models were reached. (Through a previous process of many observations and inferences, and the repeated testing of those observations and inferences in different circumstances).

Ask students to identify why respect for the truth might mean we have to revise a model that makes sense to us. (In order to do justice to reality, rather than accept the account we find most comforting.) And then ask how pride and humility might enter this process. (Pride can manifest in various ways, including both overconfidence in a scientific or theological finding or, conversely, a tendency to judge and mistrust scientists or theologians and dismiss their findings. Humility can imply both caution and a willingness to learn. Be sure that students are aware of some of the complexity here, and do not associate virtue only with mistrusting sources.)

Next, ask students what might happen if the student who wrote about the can being sucked in persists in believing this explanation and continues to observe other things in the world, such as a deflating balloon or the creaking of a deep-sea submersible. Might this student be able to come up with a model that keeps the idea of “sucking in” and explains a range of other instances? If he did, what might the risks be in simply assuming that his first inferences were right, and building an ever more elaborate model that keeps them intact? (You could refer here to examples such as the elaborate models of the solar system that were developed to retain the assumption that the earth was the center around which heavenly bodies moved.)

• How might we eventually decide whether to go with this model or with the current scientifically accepted one, in which condensation and changes in relative pressure cause a “pushing in”?
• Why might a concern for truth demand that we be willing to give up some initial inferences if another model seems better able to explain what we see?

Have students consider how likely it is that the student would have noticed the problem with false inference if the teacher had not pointed it out. Ask whether we should be equally certain about observations and inferences; elicit that we tend to be more certain of our observations than our inferences when we are aware of the distinction. We tend to recognize that there is more uncertainty associated with drawing inferences—again, as long as we are aware that that is what we are doing. However, in this case, the student probably thought he was making observations, when actually he was making inferences. This may have led him to have too much confidence, a false certainty about his statement.

What if the student held steadfast even when the teacher offered an explanation that sounded quite different? The teacher based this explanation on condensation, a sudden reduction in pressure, and greater external pressure pushing in the sides of the can—all ideas the student did not recognize he needed to use. If the student did not revise his frame of reference, he might continue to assume his observations were correct. If he believed that they were simply observations, he might not see why there could be a need to revise them.

Again, ask students to identify why respect for the truth might mean we have to revise a model that we felt quite sure about (in order to do justice to reality, rather than our own certainty), and how pride and humility might enter this process.

Conclude by discussing the questions included on Slide 2 of Observations, Inferences, Models:

• Why is it useful in science to distinguish observations from inferences?
• What mistakes are we likely to make as we try to keep the distinction clear?
• How does understanding the ways that observations, inferences, and models are related but different help us understand the nature of scientific knowledge?
• If we cannot be absolutely certain of scientific models, are they useless? Why should we trust them?
• If a scientist assumes the model she is working on is subject to revision, what does this compel her to do in her work?
• What do inferences and models have to do with virtues such as humility, faith, and love of truth?

Reinforce for students how being careful not to state an inference and identify it as an observation assists us in finding the right amount of confidence in scientific ideas, by being neither too certain (inferences might be wrong), nor too skeptical (models help us see what is there). When scientists (and science students) state why nature is operating as it is, we must remember that we are modeling what is occurring. We cannot assume we are necessarily describing nature exactly as it is, but rather we are providing our best representation or model of how nature works, in an attempt to make sense of our observations.

Good models, then, are derived from, and have held up under, much testing, evidence-analysis, and making of further observations and inferences. However, even good models are subject to revision. Seeking the truth necessitates the humility to be able to revise our perceptions, and requires a faith in the reliability of the world as we test our inferences and models against it.

¹This activity is adapted by its author from copyrighted material in Learning & Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Research and Applications by James Jadrich and Crystal Bruxvoort (NSTA Press, 2011). Used by permission.