It is important that all students develop a deep understanding of the nature of science–its methods, aims, and limitations. Why? Students need this knowledge to grow into engaged citizens and leaders in a world deeply shaped by science and technology. This proficiency is all the more valuable for Christian students as they navigate the exciting but often challenging questions that arise at the intersection of science and faith.
In the first installment of our series on Scientific Storytelling, we discussed the importance of recognizing and engaging with the personal stories students bring into the science classroom. In this second installment, we will explore how the history of science can provide not only technical insight into science content but also a nuanced understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge, an understanding that will benefit students long after their exams are forgotten.
Let me tell you a story.
Einstein’s biggest blunder
Albert Einstein had a problem. In 1915, he was finalizing his groundbreaking General Relativity theory, which wove space, time, and matter together. At its core was a set of equations describing the universe’s shape. Einstein’s equations implied that the universe was changing in size, like a balloon inflating or deflating.
This conclusion was a problem because Einstein, like Aristotle and most of Western thinkers to this point, believed that the universe was static and unchanging. He had no data or evidence to support this idea, only philosophical conviction. Convinced something was wrong, he added an extra term to his equations—the cosmological constant—to counteract that movement and keep the perception of the universe as fixed. This cosmological constant tied a knot at the end of the cosmic balloon to keep it just as it was.
A few years later, Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann showed that if the cosmological constant were removed, the math still worked and resulted in a universe that was either expanding or contracting. But Einstein dismissed this idea once again, publicly rejecting Friedmann’s conclusion without offering any evidence to the contrary.
In 1927, Belgian priest and astrophysicist Georges Lemaitre reached the same conclusion as Friedmann. He argued that if the universe was expanding now, it must have been smaller in the past. Tracing it back far enough, he theorized that the whole universe originated from an infinitely tiny, dense “primeval atom.” Not only was the universe expanding—it had a beginning!
Yet again, Einstein rejected this proposal and balked particularly at the idea of the universe having a beginning. When Lemaitre presented his idea at a conference, Einstein famously said, “Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable.” However, the evidence was beginning to mount against Einstein’s position.
Around this same time, Edwin Hubble observed that nearly all galaxies were moving away from us. The simplest explanation? The universe itself was expanding, stretching galaxies apart like dots on an inflating balloon. Hubble’s data contradicted Einstein’s static universe but aligned perfectly with Lemaitre’s model.
Finally, in 1931, Einstein visited Hubble’s observatory, reviewed the data, and conceded that the universe was expanding. He admitted that adding the cosmological constant had been unnecessary and scientifically inappropriate, calling it “the biggest blunder” of his career.
Insights into the nature of science (NOS)
This story highlights so many important aspects of how science works, principles students need to understand. Here are a few that come to my mind:
- Science is culturally embedded. Einstein was a real person whose philosophical beliefs and biases impacted the scientific conclusions he drew. Similarly, every scientist brings their own personal experiences, beliefs, and biases into their science. These things impact what questions they ask, how they explore them, and how they interpret what they find.
- Scientific ideas are judged by their coherence to the physical world. It didn’t matter how famous Einstein was or how convinced he was that he was right: when the data didn’t support his claim he was forced to reconsider.
- Science requires creativity and imagination. Lemaitre saw what Einstein and even Friedmann couldn’t—that a universe expanding in the present must have a beginning. Moving forward in science often requires bold, creative ideas birthed from wide-eyed imagination.
- There is no single scientific method. At no point in this story did one of the scientists ask a question, pose a hypothesis, run an experiment, collect and analyze data, and arrive at a conclusion. There are a collection of practices, tools, and strategies commonly used in scientific exploration, not one recipe-like process that all scientists use to answer all scientific questions that always arrives at an answer.
- Science is a community endeavor with built-in accountability. As brilliant as he was, even Einstein needed input from and needed to be challenged by a variety of other scientists in order to draw the correct conclusions from his own research. The strength of science comes from the rich, diverse community of scientists that share data, collaborate, and challenge each other’s ideas in pursuit of the best answer to a question.
The history of science offers more than just a glimpse into the technical details of scientific discoveries—it provides a window into the very nature of scientific knowledge. Through stories like Einstein’s biggest blunder, students can see that science is not a rigid, step-by-step process but a dynamic, creative, and self-correcting human endeavor. They can appreciate that even the greatest minds are shaped by cultural influences and personal biases, and that scientific progress often requires imagination, collaboration, and a willingness to change one’s mind in the face of new evidence.
For Christian students, this understanding is vital for navigating the sometimes complex relationship between science and faith. In my high school youth group room at church, there was a bumper sticker pinned on the bulletin board. It said, “The Big Bang Theory: God said, ‘BOOM’ and there was light!” This sticker represented the broad belief among many Christians that science is fundamentally in conflict with faith and that it promotes an atheistic alternative to Genesis’ creation narrative. But a deeper exploration of how the Big Bang theory was developed reveals a different story.
It was, after all, a devout Christian (remember Lemaitre, the Belgian priest?) who first developed the idea that the universe had a beginning, before which time science is not able to investigate. There were even a few astronomers, Fred Hoyle in particular, who in part resisted the idea of the universe having a beginning precisely because it sounded too conveniently consistent with Genesis. These components of the story challenge the narrative that the Big Bang has an atheist agenda and instead highlight its deep resonance with our understanding of God as Creator.
Understanding how we know what we know in science fosters critical thinking, intellectual humility, and a deeper appreciation for the interplay between evidence, belief, and discovery. By engaging students with the stories of science, we equip them not just with facts, but with the tools to thoughtfully navigate a world shaped by scientific and technological advancement.
