Tom,

Quite a few years back I spent some time studying creation science. I found that generally speaking Christians who believed in evolution gave in to the evolutionists because they didn’t know how to answer the tough questions. One quick example, honest scientists will admit that the dating techniques (potassium/argon, etc.) for things such as moon rocks are greatly flawed. There are also great problems with carbon dating. Many hard core evolutionists don’t want to give an inch to creationists because then they would have to admit there is a God, and they don’t want to do that. Creation science has much to teach the Church if people will do their homework.

Good stuff Dr. Oord, I really like the first reason you give.
Many Christians are afraid of science and therefore don’t realize how helpful some of it can be to our faith. I think God can reveal himself in some pretty amazing and creative ways via science. I have really come to realize this the past few years, having a roommate who is a Biology major.

I hope I’m not being over-bearing, but here are my thoughts:

#2 Christians should not reflect together on how best to interpret biblical passages in light of established scientific theories, instead, if the Bible is our final authority on all matters of faith and practice (as it should be), Christians should relect together on how best to interpret established scientific theories in light of biblical passages.  If science does not agree with the Bible, then science needs to be refigured.  For example: evolution.

#3 Don’t get me wrong here, I believe there are chemical imbalances and other legitimate ailments…but, when psychology states, “it’s not your fault, it’s your environment,” and the Bible says, “take responsibility for your sin, repent, and follow Jesus,” we have to ask which religious view will we follow?

#6 Just a quick comment here, while the Bible is not a scientific book per se, it is scientifically accurate.

#9 If you are suggesting that we interpret scientific “conclusions” through a biblical perspective, then I agree with you.  I watch these programs that show how wonderful nature is and then they say it was an accident of evolution…I say, “Hogwash! God, you’re the coolest!  That is just amazing what you did!”

#10 God is still intimately involved in creation.  We participate, sure, but God still has the final say as the author and giver of all life.  People and animals don’t create life.  We just provide the basic units for life (given originally by God).  God gives that stuff called life…we don’t even know what life is.

As a scientist, I can appreciate the call to Christians to understand their faith through a different, more rational set of eyes. However, as a Christian, I am worried by some of the implications you have suggested here. As Christians, we must remember a divine purpose, a higher calling, even when the world tells us “how it should be” in the most logical and rational tone of voice. “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” -1 Cor. 1:21.

#1 - While it is important to know God, and science can provide a fascinating insight into his character, I fully believe that it is not necessary or vital to know the mechanics of the natural world to know God. If this is true, I have much pity for Paul, or Peter, or Moses, who knew him personally!

#2,3 - These statements worry me, because they give license to sin if science approves. In example, homosexuality may be explained by science, but Christians are to admonish the behavior. Science approves the pornography industry, because it is a fulfillment of instinct, but Christians must be disgusted! We must understand we have a moral calling higher than the musings of scientists.

#4 - There is no overwhelming evidence of global warming, rather, there is overwhelming evidence that there is no global warming.

#6 - I appreciate Pascal’s quote, but I do not believe that many Christian scientists struggle with this issue. Rather, they more often take a more conservative approach to theology than many modern theologians.

#7 - This is a tired and useless question. While it is true that we may not know anything with absolute certainty, this is not a practical question. Rather, we proceed on sets of assumptions. As a physicist, I must assume there are these things called “mass”, “time”, and “space”, even though no good formal definition of any of these exists, because it makes the rest of my work more convenient. Likewise, our set of assumptions for Christians is that which is listed in the Apostle’s Creed after “I believe…”

#9 - Science cannot, and never has attempted to answer these questions. I am appalled that you even suggest the opposite. Worse, I am truly worried that you suggest that Christianity is unequipped to answer these important issues. If what you say is true, I have no purpose of being a Christian other than to “know God more fully”, whom you seem to liken more to Aristotle’s prime mover than a man upon a cross.

To answer your concluding question, yes you have missed something. Science is a beautiful thing; God may be known better through it. However, we cannot fall into the trap that implies that science IS God.

Peter Colyer responds…

Thomas

Last month I was addressing a seminar of Baptist ministers on “The
apologetic advantages of science”. I emphasized that science was not a
specialist interest, and ministers should be knowledgable about
scientific thinking. In much briefer terms than yours, I gave three
reasons for this:

1. Belief in creation. Whatever a Christian belief in creation means in
detail, we believe that the world scientifically explained should be
consistent with our belief in God.

2. Science is used by some well-known atheists in their arguments
against belief. This is of course inconsistent with point 1, and
Christians should address this.

3. At least in the UK, point 2 is very well known and publicised - in
the press, TV programmes, etc. All church members and teenagers at
school are aware of the (mis)use of science in atheistic argument. So it
should be a real issue for preachers and pastors.

All best wishes. Keep up the good work!

Peter Colyer
Regent’s Park College, Oxford, UK

What an interesting thought that engaging in science is also engaging in culture. It’s engaging in a culture that is also transnational and trans continental. We cannot simply ignore, as humans, the opportunity to engage in conversation with humanity even if just for the sake of engaging. Christianity and culture do not have to be separate from one another.

Harold Lindsell said, “ Dr. Ramm lets science stand over scripture and God. So the Bible is not normative.” (p. 123 of Dorrien, Remaking Evangelicalism). Lindsell believed the Bible must govern what science is allowed to say rather than allowing science to govern what the Bible is allowed to say. There is merit in wanting to view the world through the lens of biblical teaching but is the issue so monodirectional? If we follow Lindsell then would not have to conclude that the biblical writers were simply wrong when they promulgated a geocentric view of the earth? The Bible says, “the sun stood still” (Josh. 10:13) and that the sun rises and “goes down” (Josh. 23:14; 2 Sam. 2:24).

Should we take such texts to teach the truth? Christians at the time of Galileo certainly understood the texts this way which is why they said the “science” of Copernicus could not be right—they believed that whatever the Bible taught was scientifically correct. However, the majority of those who assert that the Bible is without error do not interpret these biblical texts to be in conflict with science. Rather, contemporary proponents of this approach claim that such texts are written “from a human perspective”. The Psalmist declares that “the earth is firmly established, it shall not be moved” (93:1). The biblical writer believed that the earth does not move, rather the sun moves. However, most evangelicals today believe the earth revolves around the sun. But on what grounds do they reject or reinterpret biblical teaching? Are they letting science dictate what the Bible is allowed to say is factually correct? On this point

I believe Nicholas Wolterstorff has put it well:
“It is clear that if the psalmist was speaking literally at this point, he was affirming geocentrism. But contemporary inerrantists are not geocentricists; they believe that geocentrism is false. Accordingly, they look for some non-literal interpretation of the psalmist’s words which won’t saddle him with a false geocentric cosmology. Yet they also go along with the standard historical view that most ancient persons were geocentricists….Nonetheless, the biblical writer, so the inerrantists say, was not speaking literally.

What makes them think not? Well, they don’t base their conclusion on extensive research into the thought-patterns of ancient Hebrews. They haven’t discovered a pocket of avant-garde solar-centricists among the ancient Hebrews, of which the psalmist was a member….Instead, their rejection of a literal interpretation is motivated by their conviction that if the author had been speaking literally, he would have said what is false.”
Why do those who claim that we must always allow the Bible to tell us what is scientifically correct not practice what they preach when it comes to geocentrism? Why do they not take these texts literally? I suggest it because of the scientific evidence that geocentrism is false. They accept the modern scientific account that the earth does move on its axis and revolves around the sun. Hence, they are using science to inform the scripture as to what is true and what is false, at least in these passages.

Charles Hodge, was professor of theology at Princeton Seminary in the early 1900’s and one of the Calvinist leaders who shaped evangelicalism in America in the 20’th century (I read his theology in college as a textbook). He is absolutely revered by conservative evangelicals for his stance on biblical inerrancy and other doctrines. He said that the Bible never contradicts “facts” of the world even though our particular interpretations of the bible may conflict with the facts. “Science has in many things taught the Church how to understand the Scriptures. The Bible was for ages understood and explained according to the Ptolemaic system …it is now explained without doing the least violence to its language, according to the Copernican system. . . . If geologists finally prove that it has existed for myriads of ages it will be found that the first chapter of Genesis is in full accord with the facts. . . .It may cost the Church a severe struggle to give up one interpretation and adopt another, as it did in the seventeenth century.” (Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. 1, 1901, pages 170-1.).

Having said this I also want to say that there is a danger of scientism—that science tells us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help our scientific method. Scientists are humans and are thus both finite and fallible. Christians have the right to question particular claims made by scientists. For example, the so-called neurotheology which tends to be reductionistic is questioned on a number of grounds even by non religious scientists. For me, the relationship between biblical interpretation and any other discipline is reciprocal.

Tom,

Creation Science told me that I could not accept science if it conflicts with the Bible, especially Genesis. This created an internal conflict.  You mean I must deny any thing scientific if it conflicts with the Bible? As one who studies astronomy and geology as well as one who taught theology, I found that turning a blind eye to discoveries of science merely because they conflict with our theology intellectually and theologically dishonest. As time went on I found that I did not have to see science and faith in conflict.

When pressed, every Christian will see that their views of the cosmos have been shaped by science even to the point that they conflict with the scriptures. For example:

The Bible teaches that creation came out of the waters of chaos. First came light. Then a “firmament” was placed to separate the “waters from the waters” (1:6). A firmament is a shield. Out of the waters came land and vegetation was established.  All of this before the sun and moon were created! Photosynthesis, the process that creates the very oxygen we breathe cannot happen without the sun. Yet vegetation existed before the sun? And the moon is said to be its own light and we all know that it is reflected light from the sun. The church taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Does anyone believe today that the sun goes around the earth?  I could go on but the point is that if asked, all Christians have accepted science over scripture to some degree.

The church has always had to adapt to the observations of science and this is the main issue. Does it conflict with faith?  No. As I have said before, science tells the what, faith tells the why.

Tom,

I very much appreciate this post.  I’d like to use a good deal of the 10 points in my Science, Technology and Society college course.  I don’t think I would add much to your list except to say that science cannot ever tell us what to do - science can only provide current data for analysis and predictions based on the choices we make.  In other words, science cannot replace our own ethical or moral decisions.  Science can help answer the question about what will happen if we continue to burn the Amazon rainforest but it cannot tell us what decision to choose.  Those decisions must be made on a creation ethic in light of socio-economic, ethical (and theological) concerns as well as the scientific analysis and ramifications.

This limited view of science might address some of the concerns reflected in the above comments.  We can learn lots through science about how the human brain functions and that knowledge will inform our decisions but never tell us the most ethical choice to make.  The choice is contingent on our own moral code and theological metric.  I have to object to the earlier comment (posted under Mark): “Science approves the pornography industry.”  That simply is not true.  Scientists may make statements about brain chemistry, etc. in that context but any pronouncement about the “rightness or wrongness” of pornography is not scientific.  Any scientist who “approves” pornography does so based on a personal ethic.

And thus back to title of your post: Science and Theology.  It takes both (and may I suggest other ways of knowing too) to live an informed life that honors God in the decisions that we make.

If you are interested in an Orthodox approach to knowledge (regarding esp. the first point), I recommend “Knowledge of God: Ancient Spirituality of the Christian East” by Dr. Harry Boosalis, a seminary professor. The distinction between the noetic knowledge of theology and the rational knowledge of science and philosophy is central to the Orthodox ethos.  In the West, a theologian is regarded as person with academic credentials who has studied philosophical concepts about God.  In the East, a theologian is one who knows God personally (with the heart) through prayer.

I liked this article a great deal and it gives a great deal of thought to take to a church to encourage them to consider the part science plays in their life.  In No. 2 you made the statement that “Christians should reflect together. . ” and this is important, but the reflecting should be more that just a “yes” session where every agrees with everyone else and all is wonderful.  Someone must be willing to play “devil’s advocate” and ask the hard questions, or at least make sure they are on the table. My problem with the blog is the assumption that the Bible is the final authority and many people who are into science do not believe the Bible has that kind of credibility.  That is the arena where I find myself most uncomfortable, when the foundations do not match.  How can one discuss religion and science and not use the Bible?

Tom, I appreciate this list, because you do a great job making it accessible, which is nice to see in a theologian.  
I especially resonate with statement number 7, because I think the ultimate aim for both fields ought to be one of better understanding. What I appreciate about science in theory (not always in practice, of course!) is it has built in the idea that one ought to be willing to let go off anything that is untenable to hold. I would think this is something we could learn from science as presented in theory. In fact, I would think it would be a place of common ground; however, my experience (and lots of historical evidence) points to religion being more willing to hold on to positions, even if untenable to do so (some might call this “blind faith”). In fact, I dare say that we ought to be leaders in this regard, because we traditionally believe that God is the master of all existence, not us, and thus it should never come to us as a surprise that we could be wrong about something, even something like divine revelation, since it has to go through our human perspective.
One other thing that always surprises me is that it seems most people always want to bundle up the attitude of individual scientists into what it means to do science. Are there some who are antagonistic to religion? Of course. Should that color the entire field of science in such a way? No, no more than I would hope people would judge Christianity on the basis of a few bad apples. In fact, if we look at one of the aims of science—to observe nature and make good statements about it—Christianity ought to embrace and applaud that aim, since, as you point out in #1 and throughout, we believe creation matters. This is something that is not inherent in some other religious traditions, but we have it handed down from our best traditions that creation is important, that it matters, and that it testifies to God handiwork. Will we always make good observations? No. But science has a history of correcting itself, given enough time, as one of its purposes is to make new statements, hypotheses, and what have you. We can appreciate that, at least!

Very well said, I think these are wonderful reasons for relating how science and theology coincide.

One thing that i found interesting is the “Creation Care” part, we are called to take care of God’s work, and I believe that in order to do so appropriately there will be science involved, He did not give us clear-cut ways to do so, therefore it is by whatever means we have we are called to use and know to keep our world safe/‘operational’.

I have a slight problem with why there is such a big issue between theology in science. Scientists study what they can see, and seek to find/understand what they don’t, whereas theologians expand on what they believe (typically), I suppose i might not have experienced their debates firsthand, regardless i find it rather funny.

I find it interesting that the church seems to be taking a back seat to science. It is like we are scared to take sides and voice our opinions about certain matters. This is a shame, because it leaves other believers from gaining knowledge and then their opinion about for example evolution. If someone came up to me wondering what my opinion regarding this topic, I would have no idea how to answer that. I think this falls on the church for not educating topics like this to equip members for when they are sent out to be ready in these situations.

This was a good blog post on starting the conversation for Christians to view science. Well more in the sense of Christians should start introducing science into the conversation. If Christianity is to be influential in the world today, it cannot dismiss everything going on in the world. Science provides some strong evidence of different happenings in the world. If we cannot reconcile these findings in our faith, or with our faith there is a problem. Sure there will be points where science may clash with what we believe, but we do need to wrestle with these issues.
However, again this article is great and provides some great ideas n why christians should pay more attention to science.

I’ve always thought it rather funny the amount of certainty some put on science. Of all the academic areas, science is quite possibly the one that changes the most and such changes have had the most dramatic impact on our lives. The world of science is hardly certain, if anything it opens up a larger realm of the unknown. As already noted in the post, science requires faith just as theology. As for the environmentalist trend, being environmentally responsible, aware and care-ful are great things to be. However, environmentalism is not our first priority. Loving God and loving your neighbor is. Caring for the earth is probably a legitimate way of doing so, yet I am weary of Christian sources that embed theological demands in order to promote an agenda of recycling and saving rainforests. No one wants our world to be destroyed – environmental responsibility is not a Christian-only conviction. If we are not careful, putting religious language into a non-religious issue may cause problems.

Science. . . I have no problems with it. There have been plenty of great inventions due to science. But why as a Christian at a Christian University am I careful as to whom I acknowledge 6 day creation? All my professors have “informed” me that the Israelites were not attempting to tell how the Earth was made but merely explaining to the foreign polytheistic people how there is one true God. Is this mainly due to carbon dating? What about the scientific results that show how carbon dating is not accurate beyond 3500 years? “There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates” (Dr. Robert Lee, 1981).

I agree that Christians need to learn more about science and how the earth and all things in it works. I see science, in some ways, another “form” of theology. Where we the created are studying what God has made in order to learn more about Him. This is one reason why God is amazing, is because He wants us to study and learn more about Him through all of His creation. Scientists are a great contribution to the body, and we need them. While we may not agree on how specifically the earth was created we can agree that we are to love one another, and learn from one another. In general it seems as though Christians are afraid to ask questions, because they are afraid that the answer might not be what they have always believed. We need to foster a learning environment within the church where these questions are not afraid to be asked and can be answered to the best of our knowledge.

I find it interesting when people get nervous when a scientific topic enters into a theological discussion. I have always considered the two to share equal weight in the quest to answer life’s greatest questions and solve its biggest mysteries but when I meet someone who thinks differently I am always taken aback. On both sides of the fence there are those who believe they are one hundred percent right and the other side is wrong. Both theologians and scientists have committed this fault. Learning about both sides of the debate can be beneficial to one’s understanding of God’s universe. When scientists dig deeper into their field, sometimes a belief of a creator is stirred in them from what they discover. Other times, when a hard-core theologian takes a gander at scientific discovery their views of God’s creation could be changed and strengthened. All in all, I believe it is a good idea to never completely close a door before it is fully opened and traveled through.

It is a shame that so many Christians fear science as some evil. God reveals Himself in so many ways – including science. On the flip-side, I believe that it’s a shame that many (yes, this is a major generalization) in science fear faith as some evil as well. A lot of science that I read assumes the non-existence of God and takes the stance that what is real is only what can be seen, touched, or scientifically proven. It seems that many – again, these are generalizations – people believe that people should either be people of science or people of faith. Unfortunately, few realize that these are not opposed to each other. The best approach is to allow the two to mix. Yes, we should work hard to understand science and allow it to enter the conversation; however, we must humble ourselves and admit that we can never fully understand God or our world. We cannot explain faith away.

I wholeheartedly agree that Christians shall never be ignorant of the latest data that science can bring about, but I am not sure exactly how much weight science should truly hold in answering questions. I say this because there are some areas that are held with such high regard, but there are even scientists that would deem these areas hardly a science, but rather a pseudo-science, such as psychoanalysis, a branch of psychology (Karl Popper is who I believe coined this phrase pseudo-science). Furthermore, there are a handful of scientist that may affirm certain hot topic issues, but will wholeheartedly say that there really IS NOT as much evidence, or even reliable evidence that says we should hold this claim, but it is the only viable theory insofar.

I think what is interesting in hot topic debates too, is that there is a lot of times Christians will only try to defend their beliefs with the Bible or theology whereas the person opposing them (or even attacking sometimes) will try to throw science around. I have come to find that in a large handful of hot topic issues that science and logic are actually MORE on the side of the Christian, if they not be so ignorant of the data.

I feel that the fourth point is especially poignant. As Christians, many agree that we are to care for creation, but many disregard the fact that science has developed ways to care for creation. In my vastly uneducated view, I see many of the arguments made in opposition to conservation made out of a desire to continue in their ways, rather than changing their habits. I believe that we must make a conscious effort to change our habits and be more aware of our impact, with the help of scientific research.

I agree with so many of these points! I believe science and theology must exist in dialogue. It would be foolish of me to ignore an entire field of study, simply because I do not fully comprehend it. I bring the knowledge of history I have to any reading of literature I do. I bring the knowledge I have gained about education and teaching methods to any situation where I am speaking in public, in a typical classroom setting or otherwise. It is natural to incorporate all knowledge that has been gained in an attempt to live fully. It seems to me that this same idea should be applied to theology and science. Rather than set the two fields in opposition, they should be used to supplement each other. The two do not need to exist in contrast. Christians must learn to study both fields and allow them to be mutually beneficial.

Tom,

I have always been interested in science.  When I was a child, I would come home from school, run to the TV, change the station to PBS and watch a variety of educational programs, mostly dealing with science.  Sadly, as I grew older, many of the people close to me who were Christians tried to steer me away from science, for fear that I would lose my faith.  As a result, I became hostile toward science during my teenage years, even though I was still deeply interested in the natural world.  It was not until recently that I regained my interest in science, but this time in connection with theology and Christianity. It has opened up a whole new world of thought and belief that I never want to flee. I am so encouraged by theologians like you who take science into account and I hope to be just as open as I continue to formulate my beliefs about God and the world in which we live.

I think there needs to be a careful balance between creation and science. While I do think it is important that we do not ignore what science has to offer, I also think that much of the scientific “proof” that we hear about today is often on the extreme end of the spectrum. For example, we often hear that global warming is occurring at a dangerous rate and that we need to stop it quickly. But at the same time Antarctica has more ice now than it ever has before. So, while there is certain proof of it, it most likely is not happening at the rate that certain scientists and the media claim. Therefore, in situations like this, we need to be aware of what truly qualifies as hard evidence, and possibly take what we can prove with science as a grain of salt.

I really do not get how there are Christians about there who do not understand how it is our responsibility to take care of the earth. If you are a fundamentalist you would see that Adam took care of the creatures around him and how God gave him that responsibility! If God created everything, why aren’t we taking care of what is God’s? We are concerned with self image but not the image of our world. I do not believe that God is very happy with us on these matters.

Yes, I do think you left out some things.

So many times in this type of discussion, we stop reading the Bible at the 10th chapter of Genesis. The prophets have a lot more to say on the subject of our responsibility for the rest of creation. Specifically, they tie together issues like social justice and climate change with God’s overall plan of salvation. How the first things are about the same things as the last things. It’s fascinating (and convicting) reading.

Many creationists emphasize that man is a special being, the “crown of creation.” We forget that we’re all made of the same subatomic dust. So the same “elementary principles” that apply to lab rats apply to the psychology of humans that’s laid out in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. We often make our Western theology, and even our soteriology, too much about doctrine and not enough about common sense. The Bible, by and large, takes the latter road.

Finally, I don’t think you take enough account of the way our hubris has shaped our systems of thought. The idea that science, especially social science, should be values-neutral is a subtle way of saying, “Jesus is not really the way, the truth, and the life.” It’s a post-Christian ideology, one that says that we must be impartial, but in practice, comes up with things like Stephen Jay Gould’s Non-Overlapping Magisterial Order (NOMA). That sounds benign, but it is intrinsically hostile to the truth claims of Christianity at important points.

Well, I said finally, but I do have to mention that you guys are pretty soft on evolution. Don’t you take seriously any of the work on things like Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, or the lack of evidence for an old earth? (and the wealth of evidence for an old universe, as 2 Peter says)  Do you just go with the working assumption that the Flood story is just like the verses on geocentrism? “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”?

Maybe I’ve given you enough “forgots” for another article. My dad said that his Navajo friends always made sure that when they wove a blanket, there was at least one flaw in it. Otherwise their soul would be trapped in the work. So with that in mind, blessings on you, and keep up the good work.