[ Hoover Award Iran Projects How I Became a Christian Christian Apologetics ]
INTRODUCTION
One would think the unnecessary battle between science and Christianity had
long ago been resolved; however, recent statements by both scientists and theologians
belie that thought. For example, Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist biologist
wrote, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
On the theological side, the Institute of Creation Research (ICR), a fundamentalist
Christian organization, continues to publish anti-evolutionary material such
as, "...the notion that a reptile gradually evolved into a mammal is scientifically
unacceptable." Interestingly enough, as flawed as some of the scientific
statements of ICR have been, they seem to be more informed in science than the
anti-Christian scientists have been in theology.
The causes of the science versus Christianity battle may be traced to three
errors. First, the proponents on both sides often fail to define the term, "evolution."
Second, both sides have failed to see science as a product of a Christian world
view. And, finally, both sides confuse the realms (limits) of science and theology.
WHAT IS EVOLUTION?
The American Scientific Affiliation has published an excellent book, Teaching
Science in a Climate of Controversy, for high school science teachers. In
it they list five definitions of "evolution." Micro evolution (breeding
programs which have produced hybrids and species adapting to changing environments
in minor ways) obviously occurs. Macro evolution (the hypothesis that homo sapiens
evolved from a single cell or even from inorganic compounds) is not obvious
and much more debatable. Finally "evolution" is sometimes used as
a religiously value-laden tenet of naturalistic faith that "Man is the
result of a purposeless and natural process..." Few, if any, would disagree
that we see minor changes over time in the plant and animal kingdoms. Conversely,
few would agree that homo sapiens (along with the rest of the universe) is only
a product of chance or random events.
When some biologists refer to the macro evolutionary hypothesis as a "fact,"
they distort the evidence and cloud the issue. There is considerable debate
among biologists and paleontologists about the mechanism and possibility of
macro evolution. Consequently, overstating the case for macro-evolution raises
a large target for some Christian fundamentalists. This results in attacks on
evolutionary biology which distracts biologists from a critical study of their
own hypotheses and causes them to band together against a common enemy.
As will be discussed later, extending scientific hypotheses into a theological
(metaphysical) world view under the guise of being scientific is completely
unwarranted. What ever hypotheses evolutionary biologists espouse (as long as
they are limited to biology) say nothing about Who started and sustains the
process. Likewise, theologians who read the Bible as a scientific text engage
in faulty hermeneutics. It has been convincingly argued that a correct interpretation
of the Genesis creation narrative says nothing about the scientific mechanism
God used to create the universe.
THE ORIGIN OF MODERN SCIENCE
It surprises many to discover that modern science is basically a product of
a Christian world view. The well known Cambridge historian, Herbert Butterfield
in his book, The Origins of Modern Science, convincingly argues that what happened
in the 16th century and following was not so much a result of new data, but
of changed minds. While other cultures have given great discoveries to the human
race, such as the introduction of zero from the Hindus and algebra from the
Muslims, the Christian West had the unique set of assumptions required by science.
Three main assumptions of modern science are:
the universe (world) is orderly; this orderly universe can be known; and there is a motive to discover the order. |
The Greek and Roman cultures had none of these assumptions. The
gods were fickle and unpredictable; who could know their intentions? Math and
philosophy were ends in themselves and not means to discover a rational universe.
The traditional Hindu culture saw the universe as cyclical, again with the gods
being capricious. Who could know the mind of Kali or Shiva? There was no incentive
to show that they ruled over an orderly system.
Islam would adapt the Judeo-Christian concept of a creator God and, therefore,
conceive of an orderly universe, but Allah is so transcendent that he could
not be known in the Christian sense, nor could his universe. There was, then,
little incentive to argue for the order of his universe.
Classical atheism must hold to strict metaphysical naturalism in which everything
occurs by chance or random events. To many, such a world view takes more 'faith"
than belief in a Creator. At any rate, such a view in the 16th Century would
hardly bespeak an orderly universe. If the world is illogical, how can one understand
it? If all is a result of chance, what incentive would there be to discover
order? Of course, we know that understanding science and technology greatly
improves our quality of life, but this is insight after the fact and really
borrows from the presuppositions of a Christian culture.
Only a Christian world view seems to fit the three criteria. The created universe
is logical as can be seen from numerous Biblical references such as Jeremiah
31:35, "...the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order
of the moon and the stars for light by night..." This universe can be known
because the Creator can be known as Paul in Romans 1:19-120 declares, "For
what can be known about God is plain ...his eternal power and deity, has been
clearly perceived in the things that have been made." Finally, the incentive
exists in the direct command in Genesis where God says to "...fill the
earth and subdue it..." Thus mankind is to be not only a steward but to
master God's creation.
What surprises some is that many of the founders of modern science were not
only Christians, but they were scientists in order to demonstrate that we lived
in an orderly universe. They believed that such a demonstration would be powerful
evidence that such a universe was created by an orderly God who could be known.
For example Copernicus (1463-1543), one of the first to question Aristotlean
cosmology and the geo-centric solar system, was a devout Christian and tolerant
toward the reformation. Bacon (1561-1626), another outspoken Christian, formulated
the "scientific method" and brought a more quantitative approach to
science.
The conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and Galileo (1564-1642) has been
used to support the anti-scientific bias of Christianity towards science, but
for one who knows the history (see Hummel's book, The Galileo Connection), Galileo
had many high ranking Catholics on his side, among whom was Cardinal Baronius
who wrote "[The Bible teaches] how one goes to Heaven, not how the heavens
go." Galileo, no paragon of tact, delighted in alienating his fellow professors,
who were Aristotelians and believed in a geo-centric solar system. It was mainly
they who caused the Pope to condemn Galileo's teachings, but Galileo's other
Catholic supporters helped broker the final plea bargain. Unfortunately, professors
have a history of irrational actions which continues to the present.
Kepler (1571-1630) upon whose discoveries our space program rests, wanted to
be a minister of the Gospel, but was persuaded to pursue his talents in math
and astronomy. In his writings, he frequently quotes psalms and explicitly relates
the order of his discoveries to God's rational creation.
Pascal (1625-1662) is certainly one of the greatest minds in this line of founders.
He is credited with being the father of probability theory, hydrostatics, mass
transit, modern French prose, computers, and Christian Apologetics. His Pensees
(notes defending the Christian faith) is a classic work.
Newton (1642-1662) considered his theological writings more important than this
scientific. Harvey (1578-1657), Boyle (1627-1691), Faraday (1791-1867), and
Maxwell (1831-1879) to name a few, were all devout Christians. Boyle, the first
to show the difference between compounds and elements, was a lay preacher. Faraday,
the discover of electro-magnetic induction, once only read from the Bible for
a sermon saying his words could add nothing to God's. Maxwell, who discovered
magnetic flux, wrote:
"Lord, it belongs not to my care whether I die or live To love and serve Thee is my share and that Thy guard must give." |
It is an interesting historical question as to why, science, conceived in a
Christian culture by many Christians, was turned against Christianity and why
Christians allowed this to happen. I give the Huxleys, starting with Thomas
(1825-1895), considerable credit along with others who saw science, and especially
biology, as answers to questions that had previously been attributed directly
to God. Christians, instead of realizing that their own creation was being used
against them, "threw the baby out with the bath water" and considered
science the problem rather than the misuse of science.
There has (and continues to be) a confusion between primary causes and secondary
causes. The study of natural science deals with secondary causes while theology
studies primary causes. For example, we may explain rain by saying that moisture
in the air is cooled below the dew point causing water molecules to condense
around dust particles thereby generating precipitation. This is a secondary
cause. The primary cause is simply, "God made it rain." In other words,
God, who created the physical system, is the cause behind the observable cause.
Some people attempt to explain unknown causes in nature by God's direct intervention.
This has been called, "the God of the gaps." While God could certainly
intervene in the natural process (called a miracle), to make God responsible
for common natural phenomena means that as each scientific discovery finds a
natural explanation of what was previously attributed to God, the direct intervention
of God becomes unnecessary. That is, as the gaps in knowledge become smaller,
the God of these gaps becomes correspondingly smaller. People with this mentality
see science as a threat to their faith. Obviously, were such a view held by
the founders of modern science, there would have been no incentive to find answers
to the natural phenomena. Understanding these natural phenomena as secondary
causes, places God above them where increased ability to explain how they occur
not only does not "decrease" God, but adds wonder to His creation.
WHAT ARE THE REALMS OF SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY?
Having discussed the historical rise of modern science and some of the conflicts,
the present day battles can be solved by understanding the limits of both science
and theology. The following table illustrates the almost complete separation
of the realm of theology from that of science. They do not conflict, they complement
each other.
Notice that the only intersection of the two ALMOST disjoint sets (columns)
is NATURE. So those who see theology and science as completely unconnected miss
the point. Historically, this intersection of nature has lead to what is called
the "Teleological Argument" That is, the order of the universe points
to an orderly creator, the same point made by many of the founders of modern
science. Scientists may study this mechanistic universe and be impressed by
it, but in order to understand anything about the Creator, they have to go outside
of the four dimensional time-space continuum which limits their studies. Theologians
may study the Creator who made this order, but they are bound by His revelations
(the Bible) and cannot extrapolate these to make scientific pronouncements.
Realms of Science and Theology
|
||
ITEM | THEOLOGY | SCIENCE |
Assumptions | God is primary cause along with Jesus and the Bible | Orderly universe, cause and effect, etc. |
Subjects | God, mankind, spiritual world, absolute truth NATURE | NATURE, forces, material universe |
Sources | Bible, Holy Spirit | Natural universe and events |
Purposes | Who and metaphysical why | How and immediate why |
Language | Qualitative and subjective | Quantitative and objective |
Method | Biblical studies, experiential, experimenter involved | Observation, experimenter detached |
Results | Oughtness, knowing God | What is |
Validation | Biblical principles, personal experience | Internal consistency, empirical testing |
Limitations | "How" is not explained | "Who" and the metaphysical "why" not explained |
The order of the universe is all the more amazing when we understand
that order contains information and, according to the more general Second Law
of Thermodynamics, nature destroys order (information). That is, just as water
runs downhill, the energy in the universe is "running down" and, baring
some intervention, the sun and all the stars will burn out and all that will
be left is low level radiation.
Robert Gange, in his book, Origins and Destiny, points out that the amount of
information in the simplest bacterium is 7 million bits (not the computer bit,
but information bits). Think of this number as an exponent. The question then
becomes, if the information (order) in the universe is being destroyed, where
did the original information come from? Moreover, the universe seems to have
been designed to support life. The laws of the universe are so finely tuned
to this end, that some scientists have called this order "The Anthropic
Principle." For example, if the difference in expansion rate of the universe
were different by the
universe would either collapse or no stars could form. It seems that more theoretical
physicists than biologists are impressed with this order. The book by physicist
Paul Davies', The Mind of God give compelling evidence for a Creator.
CONCLUSIONS
Two quotations on the limits of science are instructive. Vannevar Bush, past
Chairman of the Board of MIT wrote,
"Science proves nothing absolutely. On the most vital questions, it does not even produce evidence." |
"It has become increasingly evident our century that science is
uncertain in its very nature.... Indeed one thing of which scientists can
be quite certain is that they will not achieve a complete solution of any
worthwhile problem." George Gaylord Simpson, Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Harvard |
Two quotations on the limits of theology comes from an unlikely source. It was St. Augustine, who wrote in the 5th Century:
"We must be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far-fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to ridicule of unbelievers." |
He also wrote:
"The Spirit of God who spoke through them [authors of the Bible] did not choose to teach about the heavens to men, as it was of no use for salvation." |
Notice that it was scientists who understood the limitations of their field
and it was a theologian who understood the limits of theology. The final word
is for both scientists and theologians to understand and use the "two book"
model that goes back at least to Cardinal Baronius of Galileo's time which says
that the Bible reveals God's words while nature reveals God's works. In other
words: The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Science
and theology are meant to be complements, not combatants. Science gives theology
perspective while theology gives science meaning. It is time for a truce.
Christian Apologetics
Index
Home
page