Institute for Christian
Teaching
THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE
Leonard Brand
Professor of Biology and
Paleontology
Loma Linda University
405-00 Institute for
Christian Teaching
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904 USA
Symposium on the Bible and Adventist scholarship
Juan Dolio, Dominican
Republic
March 19-26, 2000
There was a time when many
scientists believed in God as Creator, and some gave glory to Him, even in
their scientific publications, for the wonderful things they studied in
nature. But beginning with the
Enlightenment the scholarly world began to shift away from reliance on
authoritative sources such as ancient Greek science, and also from viewing
religious sources like the Bible as being authoritative. This movement brought with it a rejection of
miracles, or anything supernatural, and initiated the naturalistic philosophy
that now dominates science and other disciplines.
In the centuries previous
to this change it was common for people, including scientists, to interpret
many common, ordinary processes in mystical ways. For example it was thought that the spirits were responsible for
moving blood through our bodies, and William Harvey was not widely appreciated
for his discovery that the heart is a mechanism that can be understood, a pump
that moves the blood by processes explainable by natural laws. Surely it was appropriate for science to
move away from the ancient mystical ways of understanding nature, but in typical
human fashion the pendulum swung too far the other way, until the Creator has
been pushed out of His universe in many persons' minds. In this essay we will seek to find a
balanced, practical approach to the relationship between science and God's
Word.
The Role of Assumptions
No one thinks or writes in a
philosophical vacuum. To fully
understand someone's writings we need to know the assumptions that he/she
starts from - the philosophy that inspires their ideas. A person's views on the proper relationship
between the Bible and their scholarly discipline will be heavily influenced by
their interpretation of the origin of the Bible - on the nature of
inspiration. The viewpoint presented
here is based on my confidence in the Bible as the reliable, inspired Word of
God, containing information communicated to the Bible writers by God, not word
for word, but in a way that gives it truthful authority and makes it worthy of
our trust. The Bible is not a
scientific textbook in the sense of containing exhaustive information - it
deals with scientific material in only a very brief manner. Nevertheless, I agree with Hasel (1980a)
that "Whenever biblical information impinges on matters of history, age of
the earth, origins, etc." that information is accurate. My purpose is to show that this concept can
be developed into a philosophical approach that is practical and is beneficial
to our science as well as our religious faith.
Relation
between Bible and science
It is widely held that we
should not try to relate religion and science; they should be kept strictly
separate and should not influence each other.
Those who hold a naturalistic worldview (never accepts explanations for
nature based on Divine actions) are likely to insist on keeping science and
religion separate because they believe that religions are all based on ancient
myths that have no basis in fact. But
even many Christian thought leaders are very nervous about the idea of seeking
a relationship between science and religion.
This could arise for more than one reason. 1) There could be a fear that science will finally disprove our
Christian belief system.
2) Another concern is that
we may drop back into the old god-of-the-gaps reasoning of an earlier era. In British natural theology of pre-Darwinian
times it was believed that God works through natural laws, and thus any process
that operates through natural laws does not involve the direct, special action
of God. It was thought that the direct
action of God could only be invoked in processes for which we cannot find a
natural explanation (god can be found where there are gaps in our
understanding). The problem with this
approach is that as science found explanations for more and more processes in
nature, these gaps were filled and God was pushed farther and farther away and
finally dispensed with altogether (or so it seemed). In reality our increased scientific knowledge has increased our
understanding of how God's marvelous inventions work, but has not shown how
those inventions were produced or at what level God's sustaining hand still
operates. The problem with the
god-of-the-gaps approach was that as more scientific explanations were found,
it tended to undermine faith in God.
Thus the concern about falling again into the god-of-the-gaps fallacy is
valid, and deserves an answer.
3) An additional concern about integrating science and faith is that the conclusion "God did it" may eliminate any further need or incentive for scientific research, and consequently is bad for science. 4) This problem is compounded by the tendency to read into the Bible, between the lines, our pet ideas or ideas that have become culturally ingrained but are actually not in the Bible. For example in Darwin's time there was widespread Christian belief that all species of animals and plants were created just like they are now, with no change. In reality this idea cannot be supported from the Bible, but came from Greek philosophy, and the concept was "read into" such general phrases as "after his kind". Scientific research has produced abundant evidence that at least some biological change does occur, refuting this supposedly biblical concept and further weakening faith. 5) Another way of expressing some of the above concepts, is that if we mix science and religion, the religion will bring biases into our science.
In this essay I propose that
"keeping science and religion separate" is not a realistic approach
if we wish to truly search for truth, especially if we believe that Scripture
is a reliable document. However, any
suggested method for relating science and faith must be developed with great
care, and must have an answer for the following five concerns. We will return to them later.
1. Science may disprove our Christian belief system
2. The danger of returning to god-of-the-gaps thinking
3. Religious explanations ("God did it") may discourage
scientific investigation
4. We may hold religious positions that are ultimately not biblical,
and scientific disproof of these positions will discredit our faith
unnecessarily
5. Religion will introduce biases into our science
Biblical anchor points
When attempting to integrate
biological science and religion, an important task is to study Scripture
carefully and determine what concepts are presented there that can potentially
impact our understanding of biology. We
will not necessarily all agree on every one of these points, but my list of "biblical
anchor points" is as follows:
1.
In
a literal week of six consecutive, 24 hour days, God prepared the earth's
surface and created living things (Genesis 1, 2).
2.
At
the end of that creation week, a complete ecosystem was in place, including
invertebrates (creeping things), birds, aquatic animals, mammals (cattle), and
plants (Genesis 1). Not much detail is
given as to exactly what animals and plants were present, but the list includes
some that do not appear until fairly late in the fossil record, like fruit
trees (angiosperms) and humans. Thus
the list of organisms present at creation week includes both invertebrates and also
"higher forms" of life. This
indicates that the major life forms were created, and did not result from
evolution.
3.
At
some time after the creation, there was a global flood that destroyed much of
life on the earth. Additional
information can be found in the writings of E. G. White (1864, 1890).
4.
All of the above occurred within a short time
frame, measured in thousands, not millions of years. This is not directly stated in Scripture, but is strongly implied
in geneological information (Genesis 5) and in the evident fact that many Bible
writers accepted the creation, flood and the early biblical record of human
history as accurate. Many biblical
passages make no sense whatever if the fossil record represents millions of
years of time.
5.
Jesus
demonstrated in His miracles that God is very capable of instantaneously
creating animal or plant tissue, or in restarting the biochemical processes in
tissue that was no longer living. This
is demonstrated in the turning of water to wine (John 2:1-10), creating food to
feed several thousand people from a handful of fish and bread (Mark 6:30-44,
8:1-10), raising someone who had been dead for several days (John 11:38-44),
restoring sight to blind eyes (John 9:1-11), and restoring tissue destroyed by
leprosy (Luke 17:11-17) or restoring a withered hand (Mark 3:1-6).
6.
After sin the biological world began to
change (Genesis 3:14-19). Thorns and
thistles began to appear, and some large mammals became carnivorous, that were
not carnivorous before (Isaiah 11:6-9).
This conclusion depends on the assumption that the new earth will be a
restoration of the original pre-sin earth, and conditions described in the new
earth thus were also characteristic of the earth as created in the
beginning.
If we look this list over
carefully it is evident that it represents only a thin skeleton of information
about biological history. It includes
enough to clearly differentiate between the major philosophical positions on
origins that are in evidence today, but it leaves much for us to figure
out. It says nothing about specific
geological processes that buried the fossils, or about natural selection or
mutation, and it does not indicate how much biological change has occurred
since sin. Our explanations and answers
for these questions not directly answered in the Bible are only humanly devised
hypotheses, and we must never forget that.
We will come back to this point later.
A proposed approach to the
relation of science and faith
If we compare science and Scripture and find things that don't seem to fit, must we accept science and reject the Bible, or vice versa? Or is there a better way? The following section explores the latter question, suggests some answers (from Brand 1985, 1997), and ends with illustrative case studies showing the proper relation between science and religion.
Biblical
information and scientific information originate through different processes,
and this difference must be kept in mind as we consider the relationship
between then. The Bible claims to be a
body of information communicated to us by God, who knows and has participated
in the history and workings of our planet and of life. This communication is in a book completed
nearly 2,000 years ago, written in Hebrew and Greek. Our exegetive task is to see past the language and cultural
differences expressed in the Bible, to understand the message that it
contains. Careful study of the culture
and usage of words and expressions in Bible times helps us to correctly
understand the Bible (Hasel 1980b, 42-65).
Because the Bible claims full inspiration by the same God for all
portions of Scripture, the message it contains is a unity. Thus, one portion of Scripture can be better
understood by comparing it to other portions that deal with the same subject -
the Protestant Reformation principle of "Scripture its own interpreter"
(Hasel 1980b, 70-79). This position is
the one adopted in the present work.
Science,
in contrast, is an on-going, open-ended human search for understanding of the
physical universe. It utilizes
observation, experiment, and analysis to test the validity of our ideas
(hypotheses), and to help us to think of new hypotheses. Science does not claim, and in fact
vigorously rejects the notion, that any of its conclusions has divine
authority. The Bible claims authority;
science inspires confidence by its success, but does not claim "authority";
its claims are always subject to revision when required by new data.
Science
is a slow process, with many human limitations, but still a very effective way
of discovering truth, within the limits of the philosophy that scientists have
chosen to adopt. We often do not have
enough data to be certain of the correct scientific explanation, or theory, but
even then the data help to eliminate some of the incorrect theories. Accumulating new data also enable scientists
to develop new theories that they had not thought of before. These new theories may be stepping-stones to
even better theories, or they may stand the test of time and turn out to be
correct. Science is always a progress
report on the tortuous road to truth - not final, absolute truth. In contrast to that, the Bible claims to
deal with propositional truth originating with the God who has seen and
understands all of earth history and all natural laws. How does a scientist relate the two? To what extent can science "correct"
the Bible, or at least our interpretation of it?
Science and Revelation: a Working Relationship
Within
Christianity there are many different attitudes toward the authority of the
Scriptures, but this paper is built on a conviction that there are many lines
of evidence indicating that the Bible writers speak for a loving and all-knowing
God whom we can trust, and in whose prophetic and historical messages we can
have confidence. Consequently I expect
there will ultimately be no conflict between science and revelation, when we
correctly understand both. Within this
framework, an effective working relationship between science and revelation can
result if we proceed through the following steps in our attempts to understand
truth:
1. The
accumulating data from scientific research suggest new ideas or hypotheses that
we might not have thought of if the research had not been done. In the process science sometimes challenges
us to examine our beliefs more closely.
2. When
the new idea involves a subject concerning which the Bible speaks, we examine
all relevant biblical passages, comparing Scripture with Scripture, using the
Bible as its own interpreter. In doing
so, it is important to make use of all the latest information that helps us to
reach a correct understanding of the original meaning of the words used in the
Biblical manuscripts. In this way, we
attempt to understand exactly what the Bible does or does not say about our new
idea. Is the idea compatible with the
Bible or not? Do the relevant Bible statements say what we think they say, or
are we incorrectly reading something between the lines?
3. We
then make one of the following decisions, or some appropriate variation of one
of these:
a. It
is evident that revelation does not speak to this issue at all, and does not
help us in our research.
b. We
conclude that revelation does address this topic, but does not say anything
against the new idea; there is no biblical reason not to accept it as a valid
possibility. We then proceed with
further scientific research to rigorously test it. This research may give us increased confidence in the idea, or it
may lead to even better hypotheses, which would also need to be compared with the
Scriptures. In some cases this careful
study of Scripture may show us that an idea we thought was in the Bible is
actually not there.
c. Our
study indicates that revelation clearly contradicts the new scientific idea,
thus challenging our scientific conclusions and telling us to go back and do
some more research because there is something wrong with our interpretation of
the data.
If
we follow this process, the Bible is maintained as the standard for religious
doctrines and for areas for which the Bible makes claims in natural history,
and yet science and the Bible continue to shed light on each other. Science suggests ideas that may help us to
recognize that we have been reading some preconceived idea into the Bible that
really is not there. In other cases the
Bible can alert us to problems in our scientific theories, so that we can turn
our efforts toward developing more accurate interpretations of the data. This can be an on-going feedback process in
the interface between science and religion that challenges us to dig deeper in
both areas (Fig. 1). When there are
conflicts between our science and our religious concepts, each domain
challenges us to more careful study and research in the other domain. Our Bible-based models of earth history can
also suggest testable hypotheses that we may not have thought of otherwise.
A
danger to avoid
At
this point we must remind ourselves not to let our religious views cause us to
impose artificial interpretations onto the scientific data, or to ignore data
that don't seem to fit. If the data
seem to contradict what we believe is true, we still do not need to fear good
data. We may indeed struggle with
seeming conflicts, because of limits in our available data and our
understanding of how to interpret them, but ultimately genuine truth
will not contradict itself. In the
meantime we can live with unanswered questions as we continue to search for
answers, and not pretend to have answers when we really do not. True scientific conclusions do not need
careless arguments to support them.
They will stand on their own eventually.
We
must ask again how science can be an open-ended and open-minded search for
truth if we adopt the view that "whenever biblical information impinges on
matters of history, age of the earth, origins, etc., the data observed must be
interpreted and reconstructed in view of this superior divine revelation which
is supremely embodied in the Bible" (Hasel 1980a, 68)? Would we reject a scientific idea on
scriptural grounds alone? That seeming
contradiction can be resolved if we have a correct understanding of the domains
described in Fig. 1. The processes
occurring in the scientific and religious domains are different and cannot be
interchanged. Scientific experiments
are not a basis for testing divinely-inspired scriptural statements, and
science does not test its conclusions by linguistic analysis and "comparing
Scripture with Scripture." The two
types of processes should not be confused or blended together, but the
interaction between them occurs in the thinking process called here "the
interface".
We
can illustrate this by asking whether the fossil record represents millions of
years of evolutionary history, or a short time span consistent with the
biblical view of history. The most
significant line of evidence supporting hundreds of millions of years is
radiometric dating. If I study the
evidence and conclude that "the radiometric data indicate a 540 million
year time span for the fossil-rich part of the geologic record, but this time
period is not correct because the Bible contradicts that conclusion," that
would not be accepted as a scientific statement and perhaps is not even a good
religious statement, because it is a confusing statement. However, I could conclude that "the
radiometric interpretations currently available are most consistent with a 540
million year period of deposition for the Cambrian to Recent fossil record
(scientific domain), but my study of Scripture (religion domain) leads me to
predict (interface) that there must be additional scientific discoveries awaiting
us that will lead (scientific domain) to a reinterpretation of radiometric
data, and a much shorter time span."
That is an entirely valid, honest statement, that cannot be criticized
for improperly mixing science and religion.
Many persons who have confidence in currently accepted radiometric dates
will find the statement hard to believe, but it is actually a prediction that
certain types of data will be eventually discovered, and in the long run it is
scientifically testable. The honest,
probing attitude indicated by that statement, if combined with the scientific
quality control process, could also stimulate more careful scientific research
as well as more careful study of Scripture that might otherwise not have been
done. In the meantime, if we truly have
confidence in God's communication to us we will not be uptight about not having
the answers, but will be comfortable living with unanswered questions.
Two
invalid approaches to the relation between science and religion
Earlier
I concluded that "keeping science and religion separate" is not a
valid approach. That conclusion can now
be refined to include the concepts in Fig. 1.
There is a procedural sense in which science and religion are separate. The two use different methods, and the
second of the two statements about radiometric dating illustrates the sense in
which science and religion must be kept "separate," or at least not
be confused. The interface (Fig. 1)
allows interaction between science and religion without confusion. Fig. 2 illustrates two inappropriate ways
that I have encountered in which some individuals try to keep science and
religion separate. Method A keeps a
solid wall between science and faith, and does not let them interact. But how can I believe one set of beliefs in
church, and a different and incompatible set in the science lab? This approach may work fine for, e.g.,
chemists or physicists who never ask questions about earth history, but it
cannot deal with questions of origins without being schizophrenic.
Method B portrays what I
have often observed as the actual result of attempting to keep science and
religion separate. Science is seen as
the source of facts, while religion only deals with some vague notion of spirituality. The person taking this approach does not
actually keep science and religion separate, but tests Bible statements by
external, scientific criteria. Steven
J. Gould (1999) is an example of this approach.
In contrast to these, the
interface in Fig. 1 is the key to an honest and productive interaction
between science and religion; the secret for recognizing the value of science
and granting it a constructive role in the service of our Bible-based faith,
while still maintaining the Bible as the authoritative standard for our faith. This approach to the relation between
science and faith is not just a theoretical idea. Some of us have been using it for years, and find it to be
effective and practical.
Biases from various sources
Could a person's religion
bias his or her interpretation of scientific data? In other words, can religious belief cause a scientist to accept
data that they like and ignore other data, or to interpret the data to fit
their beliefs, whether or not the data actually do fit those beliefs? It certainly can, and I could list a number
of cases in which it is clear to me that this has happened. However, if we are not going to be
superficial in our analysis of this problem we also have to ask another
question: can a naturalistic philosophy bias a scientist's interpretation of
data? I believe there is evidence that
it can. Our research will only answer
questions that we are willing to ask, and naturalism only allows certain
questions to be asked. Consider the
difference between the two questions in each of the pairs in Table 1. Naturalism only allows question number one,
and thus answer 2C is ruled out of scientific consideration by strictly a
priori considerations. Naturalism
has a powerful biasing influence in science, in steering scientific thinking
and deciding, in many cases, what conclusions will be reached. This is commonly not recognized, but it
pervades the scientific enterprise.
The best example that I know of to illustrate this problem is in the field of geology, but the same principles can apply to any discipline. When the discipline of geology was taking form in the 18th and 19th centuries the geologists Hutton (1795) and Lyell (1830-1833) each wrote books in which they developed a paradigm of geology that rejected the catastrophism of their day, and replaced it with a theory based on uniformitarian (the same natural laws have always been in operation) and gradualistic (always slow, gradual) processes over eons of time. Lyell's book was the more influential one, and constricted geology to a very gradualistic uniformitarian paradigm until the mid 20th century. It is now apparent that the catastrophists in Lyell's day were the more unbiased scientists, and the data were more consistent with their views than with Lyell's (Gould, 1984).
Table 1. Differences between
questions that are allowable in a naturalistic and in a non-naturalistic
philosophy.
A. Question 1: Which
hypothesis is correct?
a.
Naturalistic hypothesis A
b.
Naturalistic hypothesis B
Question 2: Which
hypothesis is correct?
a.
Naturalistic hypothesis A
b.
Naturalistic
hypothesis B
c.
Life
did not arise by a naturalistic process
(the implication of this answer-creation by an intelligent Designer -
cannot be part of the testable hypothesis, just as the concept of naturalism
cannot be a testable part of an evolutionary hypothesis)
B. Question 1: Which
hypothesis is correct?
a.
Gradualistic evolution of all life forms
b.
Evolution by punctuated equilibrium
Question 2: Which
hypothesis is correct?
a.
Gradualistic evolution of life forms
b.
Evolution by punctuated equilibrium
c.
Independent, non-evolutionary origin of
major groups of organisms; evolution only within each of these groups
Lyell's strictly
gradualistic version of uniformitarianism was bad for geology, because it
prevented geologists from considering any hypotheses that involved catastrophic
interpretations of the data (Gould 1965; Krynine 1956; Valentine 1966). These authors are not recommending a return
to a Bible-based catastrophism. But it
is now recognized that many sedimentary deposits were catastrophic in
nature. This recognition has brought
the discipline of geology to accept the view called neocatastrophism, a
naturalistic paradigm that explains the geologic record as developing over
millions of years of evolutionary time, but with many catastrophic events that
left their mark on the rocks. Now that
Lyell's bias has been recognized and abandoned, the philosophy of naturalism
does not prevent recognition of catastrophic processes. This episode demonstrates that bias is not a
religious problem. It is a human problem that everyone must be careful of, no
matter what their personal religio/philosophical views.
There is another pitfall
that must be diligently avoided, and that is the tendency to think that because
we believe in the Bible and try to use the Bible to suggest scientific
hypotheses, the hypotheses that we think up must be right. This is dangerous because the Bible never
gives us detailed information on scientific subjects. It just provides a skeleton of information that may be very
helpful by directing us to begin a search in a particular direction. However, once we start in that direction,
pursuing hypotheses of details not specified in the Bible, we may need to make
several changes before we find scientific explanations that will stand the test
of continued investigation. Scripture
indicates that theories about biological origins based on naturalism will be
less successful than theories based on recognition of Divine intervention in
history, but we may have to search quite awhile before we determine what types
of biological change have occurred and what types have not occurred.
Another example of the same
concept comes from the field of geology.
Christians who accept Genesis as a historical account of earth history
recognize a global flood as part of that history. However, there has been a tendency to also assume that all or
most of the fossil record was produced during that flood, and there was not any
significant amount of geological activity between creation and the flood. That concept of no formation of
fossil-bearing rock formations before the flood is not found in the Bible - it
is strictly a humanly-devised assumption, and it may not be correct.
Take science seriously, but
carefully evaluate its interpretations of data
It can be tempting to take
an all or nothing approach to data interpretation - either accept whatever
science tells us, or reject everything that science has to say. Neither approach is adequate for discovering
truth about the natural world. At the
beginning of this new century we cannot escape the challenge to carefully weigh
science's conclusions and accept only that which holds up under careful
scrutiny. Science has followed a
naturalistic philosophy that brought serious biases into its interpretations in
many fields, but on the other hand scientists are not stupid. If a large amount of data support the theory
of, for example, microevolution (changes within species), instead of ignoring
the data, it is likely to be more productive to ask what is the real
interpretation of those data? Does the
Bible help us to evaluate it? What
reinterpretation can make sense out of them?
What determines what types of changes can occur? We will generally make more progress if we
take science seriously while not swallowing its presuppositions and the
interpretations that follow from those presuppositions, but think for ourselves
as we develop a new synthesis of data and biblical principles. Persons of differing philosophy can learn
from each other, and they can respect each other as friends even though they
disagree on some significant matters.
Science cannot replace faith
In our attempts to find a synthesis of science and faith, one big mistake often made by Christians is to allow scientific arguments to replace faith. One sure way to attract a crowd of Christians to a lecture or evangelistic sermon is to advertise that, "a renowned scientist will present startling scientific proof of creation". We want to have proof - to demonstrate once and for all that "those evolutionists are all wrong" and we can prove it. It is natural and right to want to know that what we believe makes sense; that we don't have to leave our brains behind when we go to church. But can we explain the resurrection, or the virgin birth, or how we will be able to travel through space to heaven? Will we ever, this side of heaven, be able to explain how Jesus made wine out of water? Or how He created life? There will continue to be questions that we cannot answer.
We can match those questions
with a different set - can we explain electricity? Oh yes, we can describe how electrons move through a medium, but
do we really understand why that happens?
Do we understand how gravity works?
We can describe in great detail how much attraction a body with a given
mass will exert on another body, and how it will affect the movement of planets
and stars, but those are only descriptions of the effects of gravity. Can anyone explain how it can be that one
object can attract another object millions of miles away from it? If we can't answer these questions, why
would we think we will have scientific proof to answer all our questions about
origins?
If we want all of our
questions about creation or biological history answered before we are willing
to have faith, we will never have faith.
I believe that God never promised proof - He only promised us sufficient
evidence on which to base our faith, and we must trust Him for the rest. God gave us brains to be used, and one
productive use for them is to seek answers for our questions about origins, but
it is not realistic for us to expect answers to the biggest questions in the
near future. The important issue is
whether we know God. Have we become so
well acquainted with Him that we can trust Him and His Word while we continue
to search for answers and learn to live with unanswered questions?
Science is at its best when
studying ongoing processes. Science has
built up its well earned prestige in the investigation of biological, chemical,
and physical processes that are happening now and can be observed and
experimentally manipulated in the laboratory.
When we ask what happened in the distant past, science is at a big
disadvantage, because those ancient events cannot be observed. We cannot replay the videotape of history
and see what actually happened. We are
dependent on limited circumstantial evidence for study of biological history. It is fascinating to search for answers, and
we do find many answers when we search diligently, but if confidence in our
ability to find all the answers replaces our faith in God it is no longer
constructive.
Answering objections to the
integration of science and religion
At the beginning of this
discussion we considered several objections to efforts to integrate science and
religion. It is now time to evaluate
whether my suggested approach to such an integration can overcome these
objections.
1. Science may disprove our Christian belief system. If we open up our belief system to the formulation
of testable hypotheses as I have suggested, it does mean that if our beliefs
are wrong, they may be disproved. Are
we confident enough to accept that possibility? If our beliefs are false, isn't it better to find out? It is possible that some of our specific
beliefs about origins that involve details not given in Scripture may be wrong,
and it is better for us to learn that.
Ideas that are truly God-given biblical truths, on the other hand, will
not be disproved. Nature and revelation
will not ultimately contradict each other, for both came from the same
God. It is often more comfortable for
us to keep our beliefs close to our hearts and not let science look at them,
but if we do that we will miss opportunities for discoveries that will vindicate
our trust in the Creator and help others to learn to trust Him also, while
possibly also revealing that some of our ideas are wrong and not biblical.
As we use science to study
questions of origins and biological history, there is a danger that we should
be aware of. Science has for so long
used naturalistic thinking to explain all the data, that it takes diligent,
careful study to see past those deeply-entrenched interpretations and find new
ways to understand the data. Also
scientific research typically does not yield its secrets quickly or
easily. It often takes years of effort
to resolve a difficult scientific puzzle, and only the persistent researcher
will succeed. A researcher with a
settled confidence in Scripture will at times have to stubbornly trust the God
of the Bible until they finally are able to understand the data, and some of
our questions will probably not be answered on this earth. Previous experience suggests that we will
continue to find strong evidences of the Creator's hand in biological history
and earth history, but we will also struggle with solutions to some difficult
puzzles.
In summary, it is my
observation that those who warn against attempts to integrate science and faith
are often persons who do not believe that the Bible gives facts, but only "spiritual
truths". On the other hand, if we
have confidence in the truth of Scripture we don't need to fear honest
research, but we must avoid superficial efforts or they could lead us in wrong
directions.
2. The danger of returning to god-of-the-gaps thinking. It is important not to fall back into that
trap. It is not necessary to do so if
we carefully examine our logic in our integration efforts. One difference today from previous centuries
is that in some areas of science we have learned enough for our arguments to be
the opposite of the god-of-the gaps.
For example in molecular biology the more we learn, the more difficult
it is to explain origins without a Creator.
Instead of God being needed only where there are gaps in our knowledge,
the more data we collect, the more evident it becomes that we need God in our
explanations. In other words, some gaps
are not gaps in our knowledge, but are true gaps in the sequence of natural
causation, and more data don't close these gaps but open them wider. I believe that if Darwin's theory had not
been proposed until today, our much increased knowledge of molecular biology
would make it impossible for his theory to gain acceptance.
In summary, fear of the
god-of-the-gaps fallacy should not frighten us away from the efforts to
integrate science and religion into a meaningful synthesis. It is important that we be aware of the
nature of various logical fallacies, like the god-of-the-gaps, and avoid them
by careful self-evaluation of our logic and by paying attention to other
scholars' criticisms of our ideas. Just
because a task requires navigating around pitfalls is not a good reason to
refuse to tackle the task. Ask any of
the great explorers about that.
3. Religious explanations ("God did it")
may discourage scientific investigation.
The way some persons approach this subject does have that effect. However, it does not need to be that
way. The example given above, relating
radiometric dating to Scripture, shows how conflicts between science and
Scripture can challenge us to more careful and diligent research in both
science and in our religion. We have
also seen that a biblical position does suggest that some current scientific
research is not worthwhile, but it also suggests new approaches to research
that can, and already are, resulting in productive science (e.g. see Brand
1997, ch. 5).
4. We may hold religious positions that are ultimately not
biblical, and scientific disproof of these positions will discredit our faith
unnecessarily. But if we have
beliefs that are not biblical, don't we want to find that out? Scientific knowledge at any given time
includes many beliefs that will later turn out to be false. That doesn't keep scientists from pursuing
research, and ideally they readily admit when they discover new data that
change some scientific belief (especially if it challenges some other scientist's
beliefs, rather than their own!).
Religious scientists can pursue research with the same confidence and
openness to change in our humanly devised ideas about details that aren't given
in Scripture.
Problems are caused by some
creationists who devise very speculative theories about origins, that go way
beyond what is given in the Bible, and proclaim these as TRUTH. When scientists encounter these careless and
embarrassing theories it does make our faith look bad. The problem here is not the effort to
integrate science and faith, but the careless and uninformed way that it was
done. The solution is not fear of
research or fear of the effort to integrate science and faith, but careful,
well-informed study.
5. Religion will introduce biases into our science. Whether this happens or not depends on the
individual and how they approach the subject.
Some persons commonly twist scientific data, accepting some data and
ignoring other data, to make it fit their religious ideas. Other persons are much more careful and
objective in their thinking. This is
not unique to creationists, but is also true of other scientists. I have encountered a few (but not many)
extremely biased and manipulative attempts by non-creationists to make the data
fit their theories, and I have also seen the same thing done by some
creationists.
One factor that greatly
affects a person's objectivity is their willingness to seek, and take
seriously, input from others. There is
safety in numbers, and it generally seems that others, especially those who
disagree with us, are more likely than we are to see the weakness in our
arguments and theories. If two persons
with differing views are involved in the same type of research, they are each
likely to notice things that the other may overlook. Consequently they will both probably be more successful if they
seek to learn from each other.
In summary, religion can
introduce biases into our science, but so can any other philosophical
approach. The answer is to be aware of
the problem and consciously analyze our thinking to try to see if we are not
being objective, and to communicate with others regarding our ideas and take
seriously their criticisms. That doesn't
mean we will always agree with our critics, but we can evaluate whether their
criticisms are based on good evidence or just on their personal opinions. Awareness of different points of view on an
issue generally improves our ability to reach a defensible conclusion. The reverse of this is also true - if we do
not seek to integrate science and faith it is unlikely that we will
adequately understand the areas where science and religion seem to be in
conflict. If we do not put forth
serious effort to challenge conventional thinking and develop a positive
synthesis of science and faith, we are likely to accept conventional thinking
without knowing whether or not it is based on a solid foundation.
Is this issue important for
Christian education?
Some will criticize our
proposed integration of Scripture and science as an inappropriate
exercise. This criticism can be
addressed by asking a broader question - is the concept of Seventh-day Adventist
Christian education compatible with the sophisticated academic world of the new
millennium? Higher education is based
on an open search for truth, wherever it may be found, and yet our church has a
particular set of beliefs, a preconceived concept of what the basic principles
of truth are. Many would tell us that
the two concepts "Seventh-day Adventist education" and "University"
are incompatible - that the intellectual openness of a university cannot exist
in a religious setting that presupposes a predetermined set of beliefs. It is also sometimes said or implied that if
the church is willing to have a true university, it will have to face the fact
that in such an institution unique SDA beliefs will and should weaken and
possibly even disappear by exposure to the broader world of truth.
Let's examine exactly what
is implied in that philosophy. Is it
true that a religious university has a set body of beliefs, while a secular
university is characterized by open-minded consideration of all issues? Consider an example. For instance, the question of a literal
creation of life on the earth versus evolution of life over billions of years -
are these two options both discussed and weighed in a completely open-minded
way in secular universities, while only in SDA and other religious institutions
there is a preconceived idea of truth?
In reality it is naive to think that secular universities are open
minded while religious institutions are not.
Each works within a particular philosophical system.
The history of higher
education indicates a strong pattern of church operated universities drifting
away from their religious roots. They
tend to abandon the concept of allowing the Bible to assist them in evaluating
ideas, in favor of a philosophy more characteristic of secular
institutions. The question is, should
it be that way? Did the institutions
that followed that path make the right choice?
Does open-minded thinking inevitably lead to that end?
Two hundred years ago,
during the Enlightenment, scholars began to move away from the excessively
supernaturalistic thinking of the dark ages.
The scientist Harvey, e.g., had helped them to realize that spirits don't
make the blood flow in our bodies; the heart is a pump - a mechanism that can
be understood and whose actions can be explained by natural laws. Findings like this began to erode belief in
the supernatural, and as humans so often do, they went from one extreme to
another. A philosophy gradually
developed that would not accept any explanation or theory that implied any type
of supernatural involvement in earth history or biological history at any time. This became the ruling concept in science,
and made its way into the thinking of other disciplines as well, including
theology. Today, this philosophy of
naturalism (materialism) is the foundation of scientific thinking and of much
theological thinking as well. It is at
the core of the education that is offered in most institutions of higher
education. In contrast, the beliefs of
the Seventh-day Adventist church are based on the conviction that God has
involved Himself in history in very real ways.
It is true that our hearts are efficient pumps that operate day after
day according to God's laws of nature, without His needing to tinker with them
on a continuing basis. However, we
believe that it was God who designed and created hearts in the first
place. We also believe that God was
directly involved with mankind in other times and places. He gave Moses the tables of stone; He spoke
to the prophets and gave them information that guides our lives today; He
instantly healed and raised the dead.
Our conviction of the reality of these things is the foundation of the
Seventh-day Adventist church.
A friend of mine one day was
discussing the difference between religious liberals and conservatives. He pointed out that the difference was in
their attitude toward scriptural authority.
Conservatives accept the Bible as authoritative in religious belief and
practice, while liberals do not believe it is authoritative. I replied that if the Bible is not
authoritative, then the human mind becomes the measure of all truth. His answer was "that is true, but that
is all we have." I don't know of a
better way to summarize the difference between the two philosophies - in one
case God's communication is the standard, while in the other case humans and
their understanding is the standard for measuring truth.
Both conservative SDA
schools and secular education are based on a particular philosophy of what is
truth. Secular higher education is
built on the philosophy of naturalism.
SDA education is built on the philosophy that God's interaction with us
is real and literal. In both cases the
education assumes that certain concepts (naturalism or supernaturalism) are
true, and builds from there. Anyone who
believes that secular universities are more open-minded has not tried to bring
a meaningful discussion of creation or of salvation into a class in such an
institution! In most cases this would
not be well received. The difference is
not in the degree of open-mindedness, but in the philosophy that underlies
everything that is presented.
Why would anyone claim that
an SDA university, if it is going to be a real university, should be allowed to
follow academic scholarship wherever it leads, even if that means it will
follow the path that other Christian universities have taken and move away from
its uniquely Adventist beliefs and values?
Such a suggestion implies that we should move away from this belief
system because other systems of thought are superior. Some have expressed this view by saying that the SDA church with
its sabbath schools and church schools is a very supportive, nurturing
environment in which to grow up, but when students reach the college level it
is time they learned that the SDA belief system doesn't stand up. In another case an individual discussed a
conflict between SDA Christian values and the values of a particular scholarly
writer, and concluded that at this level of education (college or university) "our
first allegiance is to our discipline."
That statement is only logical if we believe that the ideas of any
(probably non-Christian) scholar are a higher standard than our Christian
values, or else that it is better to follow the majority, whether they are
right or wrong.
What will be the most
constructive approach for scholars in SDA colleges and universities? The easy path is to uncritically pass on to
our students everything we learned in graduate school, or whatever we have read. After all, who are we to question the great
minds of today; the leaders in modern scholarship? The problem with that
approach is that God is left out of the picture. On the other hand Christian scholars cannot pretend that the
modern scholarly world doesn't exist.
We cannot close our eyes and ears to keep from being contaminated. The same intellectual culture that gave us
the naturalistic theory of evolution and naturalistic approaches to theology
also developed the polio vaccine, rediscovered and documented the value of a
vegetarian diet, and invented the computer with which this article was
typed. There has never been a more
challenging or exciting era for Christian scholars. We must accept the challenge to study and sift through the
material that modern scholarship gives us; to analyze what we were taught, in
order to assimilate what holds up and discard what is in error. A Christian university should be a center
where the highest intellectual efforts can be exerted toward understanding the
world around us in light of Bible truth.
The events in the New
Testament occurred during the highly developed era of Greek culture, but Jesus
and Paul believed without question that their philosophy was superior to that
of the best minds of their day. If we
believe that the SDA message is real, we will have the humble but firm
conviction that our Christian philosophy is superior to that of the best
secular philosophy of our day; not because of our brilliance, but because of
the guidance of God's messengers to us.
There are risks in this approach, just as there are risks in unthinking
acceptance of the predominant popular ideas.
These risks arise because we are human, and prone to read our own
fallible ideas into the Bible, between the lines, and then think the Bible
supports us. I can think of examples,
individuals who have taken a strange intellectual course because they believed
that any ideas they held must be right, because they believe the Bible.
Science has a solution for
the analogous problem in scientific research - bias is kept under control by
communication with one's colleagues.
There is no reason to believe that an individual scientist is more
objective than other people.
Objectivity enters the scientific enterprise when scientists submit
their ideas for peer review through discussions with colleagues, presentation
at scientific meetings, and peer-reviewed publication. Colleagues' critiques of our work help us to
see where our ideas don't stand up to careful scrutiny. However, the insightful scientist does not
mindlessly accept or reject all suggestions offered by reviewers, but
thoughtfully weighs each criticism to determine which are well-supported and
which are not. Some of the most telling
criticisms come from those who disagree with the point of view being
presented. But it is important to
evaluate whether the criticism is solidly based on data, or based on a set of
assumptions that are open to challenge.
Through this on-going process a scientist who is willing to learn from
the process is assisted in avoiding extreme, untenable positions.
A similar process of
communication with peers will assist Christians in judging our own fallible
ideas as we develop a Biblically consistent approach to modern scholarly
disciplines. Critical evaluation by
others helps us to recognize where our thinking is superficial or is not
biblical. The other crucial part of
this process is a prayerful sense of our need for the guidance of the Holy
Spirit. The truly Christian university
offers a unique situation for this process to occur - an opportunity to advance
in understanding beyond what is likely to be encouraged in a secular
environment. The following statement
indicates that it is not God's plan for His people to hide from careful
scholarship.
"A knowledge of science of all kinds is power, and it is in the purpose of God that advanced science shall be taught in our schools as a preparation for the work that is to precede the closing scenes of earth's history" (FCE p. 186).
This is not a time for timid
Christian scholars. We cannot escape
the task of comparing human knowledge with Bible truth, and after sifting out
the obvious errors in our own education, to develop a synthesis of biblical truth
with those modern contributions that stand the test of comparison with the
Bible. If we allow God's Word to also
suggest new insights to us, we can advance beyond the ideas that have come from
purely human sources. To do this
requires truly creative and insightful minds and the courage to speak out even
on unpopular topics when necessary - I repeat, this is not a time for timid
Christian scholars, but a time to ask God to open our minds to the
scholarly advances that will be a blessing to His work and will give Him glory.
Literature Cited
Brand, L. R. 1985.
Can science and religion work together? Origins 12:71-88.
____, 1997.
Faith, Reason, and Earth History.
Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
Gould, S. J. 1965.
Is uniformitarianism necessary? American Journal of Science 263:223-228.
____. 1984.
Lyell's vision and rhetoric. In:
Berggren, W. A., and J. A. Van Couvering, eds. Catastrophes and Earth History:
The New Uniformitarianism.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
____. 1999.
Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. Ballantine Books.
Hasel, G. F. 1980a.
The meaning of the chronogeneologies of Genesis 5 and 11. Origins 7:53-70.
____. 1980b.
Understanding the Living Word of God. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press.
Hutton, J. 1795. Theory of the Earth With Proofs and
Illustrations. 2 vols. William Creech, Edinburgh. (Reprinted 1959. H. R. Engelmann (J. Cramer) and Wheldon and Wesley, LtD.,
Weinheim)
Krynine, P. D. 1956.
Uniformitarianism is a dangerous doctrine. Journal of Paleontology 30:1003-1004.
Lyell, C. 1830-1833.
Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes
of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation. 3 vols.
John Murray, London.
Valentine, J. W. 1966. The present is the key to the present. Journal of Geological Education 14(2):59-60.
White, E. G. W. 1864.
Spiritual Gifts, Vol 3, p. 76-79.
____. 1890. Patriarchs and Prophets, p.
107-108.
General references useful
for this topic
Books:
Brand, L. R. 1997.
Faith, Reason, and Earth History. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
Dembski, W. A. 1999.
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downer's Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.
Hasel, G. F. 1980.
Understanding the Living Word of God. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press.
Johnson, P. E. 1991. Darwin on Trial.
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
____. 1995.
Reason in the Balance: the Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law &
Education. Downer's Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.
Moreland, J. P. 1989.
Christianity and the Nature of Science. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker books.
____, ed. 1994.
The Creation Hypothesis.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Roth, A. A. 1998.
Origins, Linking Science and Scripture. Silver Spring, MD: Review & Herald Publishing Company.
Journals:
Origins. Published by Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda
University, Loma Linda, CA 92350.
Usually two issues per year, 1974 - present.
Origins and Design. Published by Access Research Network, P. O. Box 38069, Colorado
Springs, CO, 80937-8069. Published 2-4
times per year.