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.

I really appreciate this blog post. I understand the urge of many Christians to stay away from science. I believe many think that it is a challenge to God and faith! I believe that is completely beside the point. Christians who refuse to dialogue with science run the risk of completely losing credibility in the world. No matter what a particular Christian’s opinion of science is they must engage it on some level in order to have a respected voice in society.

Dr. Oord,
  You have some very valid points that I agree with too. But I especially like or agree with point number one, knowing God. I believe to have a stronger relationship with God you have to be a well rounded individual.I think sometimes we get hung up on thinking that their is only one way to know God. But I think that we need to be able to see God in all things.
-Jacey

I have talked with many scientists about some of their theories dealing with the creation of the world. I don’t know how in depth you know some of these theories. However, there are a few issues that I would like to know what you think about. The first issue is that scientists believe that the earth was formed after several small objects collided with one another due to their gravitational pull. After several objects collided, a large mass was formed, the earth. At one point the earth collided with another large mass which caused debris to create a ring around the earth. Eventually, the objects within that ring collided with one another again do to gravity and the moon was formed. My question is that if this is how our solar system works, then why does the asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and Oort belt continually break apart rather than collided into one object? I realize that there is a lot of space out there between the objects in these belts, but there was also a lot of space when the earth was formed. My second question is, if this is true then why does the moon and the earth, which originated from the same collision, not have the same materials? We cannot find moon rock on the earth and likewise we cannot find many earthly materials on the moon like coal. I realize that heavy materials would not have been ejected out in to space to form the ring, but many lighter materials would have that we still cannot find on the moon. What are your thoughts?

I love this post! For as long as I can remember I have not been able to understand how people try and separate science and theology. I believe that it is possible for God to use science and creation to reveal Godsself to us. If we are created in Gods image than we are far to complex to know the details behind what God has done in creating us.  I think that science can help us to discover more and more about ourselves and about God. I think that it is important to remember that discovery and relationship go hand in hand. Science is about discovery and theology is about relationship. These should not be separated.

I like that you mention Science and Theology both being able to be talked about with confidence, and yet they both go by faith. I think that it gives us something to find common ground with. To be honest I think it is interesting when we say we should look at something scientifically, or theologically. I sometimes sit in philosophy class thinking, that a philosopher made a good point, but if only he had looked at it thelogically it would have made so much more senses. Why does it always have to be one or the other? I think sometimes the combination is what makes a well rounded perspective. Is there just not enough in common?

I feel like that this is a wonderful relationship that needs to be revived. The idea of science to know is to attempt to understand a creation of God. When an individual understands, even in the slightest portion the creation of God they are learning something about the Creator. I think that as we move into this postmodern era there is a necessity to revive science within the church so that the church may continue to learn more about the groom to which they are betrothed.

The Whitehead quote used in this post is remarkably relevant and engaging for being a century old. I agree and appreciate this post, Dr. Oord. I want to argue that Christians often define them within a narrow box of ‘Christianity’, but fail to see the interconnectedness and relational aspect of the world around them to that faith they hold so dear. In order to represent a holistic model of faith, we must get beyond a surface level examination/removal of all things other than ‘Christianity’ and actually consider what it means to see the world around us, particularly science, in way that is faith enriching.

Dr. Oord,

I have wrestled with the question of the compatibility of Christianity and science for quite a while now. I appreciate this post as for the most part it reflects where my conclusions have landed. In my studies and in my relationship with the Divine I have found a peace with allowing science to inform my interpretation of the Bible as I do not believe the Bible’s purpose is to be science. Also, if I try to separate my God from science I feel like I would lose, in my opinion, one of the strongest defenses of God, the fine-tuned universe theory. For my walk with God my faith is that I can believe in the Divine Trinity and never compromise on my Lord’s power or character while trusting that science is a worthwhile resource.

D. Hawley

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.

There were a couple of things that caught my eye as I read and re-read your thoughts on why Christians and Scientists should work together. The first is with Biblical Interpretation - you stated ‘Christians cherish the Bible. It provides the primary – but not only – resource for knowing God, knowing how humans ought to live, and knowing some things about the universe.’  Though I agree with what you are saying I was struck by the fact that the Bible is not the only resource we have to know God and his creations.  I can see this truth being a threat to some in the church today.  The second thing that caught my eye is your statements concerning Creation Care.  I have seen this topic to be quite controversial in church.  But, if we truly believe God has created us to care for what He has created, we need to be about caring for our world and the way we treat it.  Though there are many ways to go about this treatment it should not negate the fact that we have a responsibility to the care of this world.

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!

The importance of the science-theology dialogue and integrative theology is accentuated by the people to whom we are ministering in the twenty-first century. People truly desire and demand honest, well-articulated answers (and if not answer, then significant discussions) to their difficult questions. Without a holistic approach to an integrative theology, our understanding will remain thin, our engagement shallow and our impact minimal in today’s world. As never before, people are exposed and have access to such immense knowledge, data and research in the world and this creates a greater need for a holistic and inclusive approach.

Your ten reasons are significant in explaining the need for conducting the science-theology discourse. Perhaps the preceding paragraph tends to flesh out reason #5 a bit. As we engage the scientific community and their pursuit for truth and knowledge, perhaps we open the door to truly impact the world for the Kingdom.

Hi Dr. Oord. This is a post from a student in one of your NNU classes. Hopefully, I was clear on how you wanted us to respond in order to meet the class requirement.

Each of the ten reasons why Christians should care about the science-theology interface were helpful to me in better grasping the purpose of the class and building the case for engagement by the believer in matters of science.

Perhaps the most compelling of the ten reasons was, “What can we know?” It is quite true that Christians, perhaps even more so than scientists, are so dogmatic in positions that it often borders on arrogance. There need to be certain core beliefs that believers consider non-negotiable for the evangelical Christian- the inspiration of the Bible, the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ, a belief in the resurrection, an eternal judgment, etc. However, I think Christians ought to take a less stringent view of many positions- as I think many Christians have- on matters of creation, etc. It seems to me that accepting evolution in some form, the need to preserve the environment, and the concept of that which has been created now serves as co-creators with God, need not necessarily be seen as an assault on an unwavering faith in God’s power and sovereignty.   

I am still not clear on what the role theology may have to play in scientific inquiry. In other words, I can see how theology may benefit from new insights from scientific inquiry, but I wonder if the scientific community is interested in what theology can contribute to the debate?  I’ll be interested in learning more about whether there really is an appetite for dialogue between science and theology that flows in both directions.

I can’t say that I find anything to disagree with in this post.  If I did, it would only probably lead me into the discussion rather than out of it and create reason number 11 why we should talk about it.  Other people are talking about it and when the church (Christians) don’t talk about things that other people are talking about, the world becomes the expert that is educating our kids on the subject.  In public schools, science is a subject that is required and theology is not.  Therefore, if we paint science as the bad guy and refuse to even interact rationally with its findings, we set ourselves against it entirely and ensure that nothing theological will ever end up in the same discussion in our schools.  Also, we put our kids in an extremely awkward position when we tell them that what they are being taught is wrong, and don’t have a reasonable explanation for the existence of dinosaur skeletons in the local children’s museum.  I would say that Christians being willing to enter into intelligent science-theology dialogue is probably largely to be credited for the (at least partial) acceptance of intelligent design in the scientific community and thus to some degree in the classroom.  We must talk about this or somebody else will be the “expert” speaking to our kids and the people in our churches.  By the way, the they’re all ignorant, the devil, evil, faithless, etc. argument is not working with our kids anymore.  We have to have a better answer than that.

Here are my thoughts;

#1 & #2 - Science helps prove the accuracy and reliability of Scripture.  It is critical to have this dialogue between science and theology.  It gives Christians a solid source they can build on to know God much better and deeper.

#3 & #4 - Humans are part of creation and responsible to take care of it (Genesis 1:26).  I think the Colossians 3 principles should guide us in responsibility as stewards.  The one thing I have trouble with is that we are losing the value of human life.  Many times the sanctity of human life is lower than the rest of creation.  God said in Matthew 6:25-34 that we are more important to Him than all of creation.  I am not heartless and strongly believe we should treat all of God’s creation as a gift from Him.
 
#6 - As a final note (realizing I am pushing the word count), I want to encourage Christian scientists.  I love to have conversations about the sciences with them over any other scientists.  Here’s why; I can dig deep into the miracles of God’s work as proven by science from a similar perspective.  I can learn so much more about who God is in a friendly conversation of two Christians than through an argument I am not prepared for.  The Christian scientist can help us prepare me to have a solid foundation in my faith in God when I face the tough questions.

This really makes much more sense to me than the reading material we have been studying. Your blog was much more simplistic and much easier to understand. When I think of science trying to explain theology, I think about someone somewhere trying to explain who God is through scientific means. In other words through science someone is trying to explain God is not the Creator of the universe and everything in it because something had to exist before God. Each of your ten points really helped me to understand what I felt I understood all along. For instance creation care needs to tie science and theology together. The care for the world in which we live needs to have science to help teach farmers how to produce an abundant supply of food for the world which in turn can feed the masses who may be starving? God says care for what I created so we need every resource available to be able to accomplish what God commands us to care for.
Word Count: 171
Dan Kraynek

Science and theology are not only are ways to know God, but each is a unique approach to knowing God.  Theology via biblical interpretation (or other forms of theological studies) gives us a look at the character, the nature of God.  Scientific study gives us a look at nature made by God.  This nature reflects God’s character too.  We become creative in our stewardship of creation and relationships too.  We must understand that for which we are responsible.  If we consider emergence, we also find that our characters, as images of God, include something beyond the compilation of our cells and our knowledge of our Maker.  This quality provides LIFE, awareness and communion with the Spirit.  God in us goes beyond facts and data.  We continue to become closer to God. We become more creative.  Another reason for caring about science and theology is that they keep each other ‘honest’ with checks and balances.  This limits the potential for going so far off base, that we forget the basics.

As I read this I saw so clearly the need for both science and theology. They are both so very important in understanding God and creation. When many people think about science there is an automatic assumption that there is no Christian influence but that scientists are against God and belief in a Creator.

You have really helped me to see that science is not ‘bad’ but helps us in certain areas. It is virtually impossible for anyone to prove the existence of God, many can attempt but there is no concrete evidence. When it comes to creation, we can see the evidence of intelligent design and attribute of a Creator.
From the beautiful scenic views to the human body, creation reveals God’s divine nature.

I want to echo the comments of Lisa, Charlene and others affirming the obvious need there is for both science and theology to come to some kind of reasonable interaction in the study of the universe. I am not sure yet what would motivate the scientist to engage the theologian in this venture- not sure what they get out of it- but clearly theology needs to be open to science because I believe it will serve to affirm, not refute, what we believe to be true about God’s creative genius. God wants to be known…I would also join in with Dan’s statement about your blog and just add that I found it infinitely more interesting and readable than the textbook. I hope we can spend more time in entries like this. God bless!

Christians should care about science as well as other issues that shape the way society views the world. I don’t know if we should feel as deeply as the author of this blog express, but we should definitely attempt to understand and care. I do not agree with the first reason presented on why Christians should care about science. I don’t think that to know God we need to have a scientific understanding of the creatures he created.
I definitely agree with the seventh point made in that both theology and science live by faith.  I think that for anyone not to believe in anything is hard to do when you have science or any type of theology influences continually around you and shaping the world you live in.

I think many people that value theology are afraid to get in the discussion of science because they fear science will prove them wrong in their faith. The debates about science and theology seem to be at odds with each other and many people do not want to be in the discussion in fear of losing. You cant lose if you do not participate. I also think that theologians sometimes do not have the adequate “facts” to defend faith. Science has proof, stats, and experiments that can help defend their position. THe truth is the debate is a moot point because faith and science are not at odds with each other. It is my belief that science is the study of what God has created. Scientists and theologians can work together to figure out what creation is and has to offer.

I did enjoy this blog, I agreed with many of the points raised in it. I found it interesting because I had never thought of many of the points mentioned here except for points 1, 4, 6 and 9 before. I agree that is very important that Christians need to care more about science. I also think that scientists need to care more about religion as well I personally think both go hand in hand. Both live by faith and the belief in someone (God), something or theories that are not visible with the human eye, but are continually changing and impact the way we live our life and the universe around us.

I like these ten points about science and theology. We could spend an entire semester talking about just one of these points and never find the answer. Point Two about Biblical interpretation particularly interested me. The Bible is a fascinating collection of texts, but many people that identify them selves as Christians use it as a justificational law book, interpreting it how ever helps them justify there actions. I think a basic Bible class that explains how the Bible was written would benefit people who are Christian.

I believe that Christians in general have a hard time believing in both science-based evidence and their faith. These are some great points. I also believe that Christians are afraid to get into conversations or debates because they may think science can prove their faith wrong. But like I stated in the evolution blog posting, evolution is science-based and we have not seen it personally. All we have seen are fossils, DNA testing, and the like to “prove” evolution is true. The same thing happens with proving there is or is not a God, you can’t prove or disprove, it’s their faith. But it’s important for Christians to care about both science and religion so they have a well-rounded perspective on the scope of the whole world and how it works.

I found this blog post very interesting because I was on facebook last night and one of my friends made a very negative comment about religion and God. His comment started a huge discussion about religion and science. Most of the comments were against religion and praised science for having all the answers. I thought this was very interesting because there are so many unknowns in both science and theology that I find it hard to say which one shapes our lives more. Being a scientist and a Christian I think that neither religion nor science have all the answers, they are here to help us lead our lives in a Christ-like manner and to help us learn more about our world.

These ten points are simply and concise in explaining why Christians ought to invest time into both Science and Theology. I personally think that in a way, Science and Theology are two pieces of a three piece puzzle I like to call God’s universal ideologies. Science represents the piece of the puzzle that can explain about 95% on the physical world, whereas another third of the puzzle is Theology, that which attempts to explains God’s discourse on earth, explains a great portion of our spiritual world. The third piece is Philosophy, which attempts to explain the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
All these pieces make the wonderful universe that God has created. All these areas of study seek truth. If all truth is God’s truth, then Christians ought to accept that Science, Theology, and Philosophy are ways of seeking said truth. Meaning, we as Christians should look to all these disciplines for understanding what God has created. I am a firm believer that human beings are both physical and spiritual beings and to ignore or neglect one or both is disrespecting God.

I agree that Christians should be involved in scientific matters and debate. It is important for us to be educated and know how to defend our faith. Your first point is valid, though I don’t think we CAN’T understand God unlses we understand creation. I believe we can see His character in creation, and this helps us gain a better understanding of God, but it is not the only way to understand Him. As scripture states, “The heavens declare the glory of God”. I also agreed with chapter 4- though there are definite extremes and I don’t condone strong environmentalism, I do think it is a significant responsibility that Christians often overlook. However, you make a controversial statement by saying there is “overwhelming evidence for global warming”. Yes we should be careful with pollution and be aware of our effect on the environment, but there is no evidence that global warming is anything more than a fluctuation or cycle of the earth. I have watched An Inconvenient Truth twice, and it is full of logical fallacies- it is more of a political movie than anything else. Anyway, I know that is not on topic and a separate matter, but just wanted to point it out. Overall I do agree that Christians have an important place in science.

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 think science and theology are one of the biggest topics in the world today. One that comes into mind is evolution. I think majority of Christians know how the world was created and that the Lord was above all of that. I think we as Christians have to believe in him the whole time and people that dont know God need to be presented to him. Then they will know the real person who created the earth and so forth.