As Christians, our primary concern is truth. We seek to be faithful to the way things really are. The enemies of Christianity would have us believe that Christianity and science are in opposition. The fact is that all science is the study of God's creation. As far back as Bede the Venerable (c. 672-735) Christians have committed to this study, correctly seeing it as a pathway to truth. Robert Grosseteste, the 13th century Bishop of Lincoln, is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. Robert Boyle, from the 17th century, argued that the study of science could improve glorification of God. Isaac Newton, regarded as one of the greatest scientists in history, was a life-long committed Christan. And this close co-existence between science and Christianity continues into the modern age. Charles Hard Townes, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics and particle physicist John Polkinghorne are two notable but by no means rare contemporary examples.
But of course while there is no incompatibility between Christianity and science, there has from time to time been problems between the church and science. Over the centuries, brilliant scientists have been marginalised and pilloried because their genius was far ahead of the church leaders of the time. Most frequently, the source of these tensions can be traced back to one thing - the Bible. Before my Christian friends run screaming from their laptops, let me correct myself. Not the Bible but interpretation of the Bible.
Christians believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. Theologically, this belief is not optional for Christians and, in my view, neither is it optional from a practical, analytical viewpoint. Once you begin to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you are going to accept, where do you stop? For example, if you cannot accept the virgin birth, why would you accept anything in the Gospels? When tempted to doubt, bear in mind two important points. Firstly, if God is who he says he is, then anything is possible, however impossible it may seem to you. Secondly, the Bible is the pre-eminent source of Christian theology. A Christian undermining the Bible is like sawing off the branch you are sitting on. You may still believe in God but whatever you call yourself, you cannot correctly refer to yourself as a 'Christian.'
So as Christians we accept the Bible as infallible. However, infallible, but not always literal. Christians down the ages have accepted that some parts of the Bible are allegorical, illustrations not intended to be taken literally. Yes, the Bible is infallible but sometimes our interpretation is not. If scientific discovery reveals a clear truth apparently at odds with the Bible, we need to review our interpretation. Whilst some believe that scientists stretch it beyond its rational limit, most modern Christians accept that the theory of evolution is a reality and therefore valuable in helping us to understand God's creative processes on the earth. When Darwin discovered it, he helped us to see the 'how'. The 'who' remained the same. Interesting, if you read the creation account in Genesis, you will see that the order of creation, from vegetation for humanity, is the same as described by evolution!
However, the point is that the creation account in Genesis is indeed the inspired word of God, suitable for all teaching and guidance (2 Timothy 3:16), but scientific discovery suggests to me that it should not be taken as a literal description of creation. The Genesis story of creation is full of timeless wisdom and cannot be legitimately jettisoned by any right-thinking Christian. But accepting an allegorical interpretation takes nothing away from the value of the teaching contained within it and in no way undermines the Christian narrative.
A dogged refusal to accept anything but a literal interpretation of the creation account is in my view very damaging. In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is more than 4 billion years old some Christians continue to insist that it is in fact just 6,000 years old, citing evidence in the Bible. This 'calculated' age is presumably based on conventional 24 hour earth days. In the Genesis account, the 24 hour daily cycle was not actually created until the 4th Biblical 'day'. God is outside time and space. So, clearly the Biblical seven days of creation are not the same as days as we understand them (2 Peter 3:8).
Further, the weight of scientific evidence means that insisting on a 6,000 year age requires a Christian to suspend their God-given intelligence. In the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30), Jesus takes an extremely dim view of the servant that fails to use his intelligence. No, God has given us a brain and we should use it. The science-refusing view is also damaging to Christianity generally because it is seen as ridiculous. If satellites and astronauts had not proven beyond all doubt that the Earth is round, would we still be arguing that it is flat? After all Isaiah 11:12 says "He will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the Earth." OK, Isaiah 40:22 also says "It is he who sits above the circle of the Earth." but you get my drift.
Making Christianity appear ridiculous, however unintentionally, can drive people who otherwise could be enquirers away, contrary to our Christian duty (Matthew 28:19-20). It can also create an intellectual barrier for people. We should be leading people to the faith, not creating problems for them (Luke 11:46). I am sure that decent, devout Christians who take this view feel they are defending the faith from an atheistic onslaught but God really is big enough to defend himself. If we believe that Christ is who he says he is, we must also accept that rigorous scienctific study will never disprove Christianity. In behaving this way, we imitate the enemies of Christianity. Secular scientists who, having realised that the conditions in the universe are fine tuned for life to an extent that is effectively impossible - making a supernatural cause the only sensible explanation - counter by saying that there must therefore be an infinite number of universes, despite having no evidence whatsoever for such a fanciful idea. Faced with a truth that apparently conflicts with their faith, they resort to nonsense. Christians should not be behaving in the same way.
So, Christians have nothing to fear from science. Indeed, we can celebrate the rich joint heritage of science and Christianity. If sensible and robust scientific study appears to conflict with a Christian concept, we should retain our confidence in the faith and seek God's interpretative guidance. We defend the faith by seeking truth, whether in the Bible, or the laboratory.
Hi Michael - I enjoyed this. It is a mistake made by many to assume that all the scientists say one thing and all the Christians hold a different view. Plainly, Scientists - that is people who have qualified in and earn their living by science- agree on very little. Similarly there are many Christian views of 'creation'. However, here's a curve ball: In the New Testament Jesus first recorded miracle was to turn gallons of washing water into first class wine. A mature creation miracle. How long would it take for good wine to ... well not evolve obviously, but mature at least? Once we settled on the fact that nothing is too hard for God we can contemplate the possibility that the multi-millennium earth was 'miracled' in a day???? There are many well informed 'young earth men' who hold strongly to this idea. It creates, as you say, a problem for people who beleive in an old earth and a small god - maybe.
ReplyDeleteHi Allan - Thanks for your comment. I'm glad you enjoyed this.
ReplyDeleteClearly, there is much that scientists do not agree on but amongst the scientific community there is no serious support for the 'young earth' view. Of course, God, who created all the rules of nature, could have created the Eartn in a day but my point is that, as Christians, we should be relaxed about scientific discovery. The Earth being 4.5 million years old does nothing to damage Christianity. If scientists claimed to have proof that the resurrection, for example, was a sham, then we would have something to be concerned about. However, that will never happen, not just because it is scientifically impossible but also because if God is who he says he is, serious science will never be able to discover this because it would be untrue!