A Christian Reponse to Science, Part Two

Science is old… older even than the written Bible. The earliest record of a person doing science was Adam when he named the animals in Genesis 2 (taxonomy). Isaac practiced agricultural biology when he bred his sheep and goats for select genetic traits. The writer of a third of the New Testament, Luke, was a physician, which is reflected in his rigorous research. Hezekiah used physics and city planning to build his cities and tunnels. Beyond Scripture, the Maya had their astronomy, the Egyptians their architecture, the Greeks their medicine, and the ancient Chinese… well.. a little of everything. So, if science is not a modern, atheistic conspiracy, what should the relationship between science and religion be?

First, science should be based on the evidence of the natural world in the same way that Christian beliefs should be based on the authority of Scripture. Science still had a lot of growing to do before it would arrive at the scientific method two centuries later, but at the turn of the sixteenth century, intellectual thought in Europe experienced a series of radical upheavals that all shared the battle cry “al fontes”--- back to the sources. Humanists started questioning political, cultural and philosophical practices that existed “just because.” Next, came the great reformers—Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli--- whose desire to return to the biblical sources sent shock waves into the world powerful enough to splint the European Catholic church and Protestantism emerged. Hot on their heels came the scientists. Jumpstarting the scientific revolution was Copernicus’ On Celestial Bodies, that argued--- based on research conducted in the natural world, not convoluted theories derived from misinterpretation of biblical texts or a slave-ish dedication to Aristotle--- that the earth revolved around the sun. His book was published by the same printer that printed many of Luther’s works and its forward written by Luther’s fellow reformer Andreas Osiander. Osiander’s introduction makes it clear that science and theology must both be firmly rooted in their own sources.

Second, there is a distinction of method and role between religion and science. Part of the devastation of the darkness that hung over medieval Europe was the fact that science was considered a subset of theology, so bishops and popes had the final say on all matter of health and science despite often being wildly unqualified to do so. Any attempt to question the science that the church taught was viewed as an attempt to question God himself. Copernicus’ successor in his heliocentric quest was Galileo, who had the bad luck to be born in deeply Catholic Italy rather than the more open (comparatively) protestant Germany. In 1616, Galileo was condemned by the Inquisition for “heresy” for teaching the earth was not the certain of the solar system, he was placed in house arrest till his death, and his works were burned. It is a dangerous thing for scientifically illiterate pastors and Christians to delude themselves that they understand the scientific implications of the Bible to the point that they attack (verbally or figuratively) those who are actually studying God’s world.

Third, Christians should not shackle the revelations of the Bible to science or the knowledge obtained by science to a misunderstanding of the Bible. Famously, Thomas Jefferson once cut up one of his Bibles to remove anything in it that could not be proven by science. It was probably more of a thought exercise for him than a religious statement, but many philosophers before and since have tried to do the same by subjugating the supernatural claims of Scripture to the laws of the natural world. On the flip side, some thinkers have tried to do the opposite--- subjecting each natural discovery of science to the supernatural revelations in Scripture. Convoluting science and religion reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible itself and of God’s omniscience. Scripture is the revelation of God’s working in human lives and history climaxing in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (Luke 24:27; 2 Pet. 1:20). It is not the complete revelation of God’s character and knowledge or God’s world. A God whose character and creation could be completely contained in a single book--- even one as large as the Bible--- would be an exceedingly small God indeed. Science shows up in the Bible--- just like grammar and architecture do. But no one would expect an English teacher to teach grammar using the run-on sentences of Galatians or would want to live in a home that an architect built being guided by nothing more than the parable of the house build on the rock.

Forth, humans should use science to learn about God’s world and through it, learn more about him. Humans being have four ways to learn about God. One, they can receive divine revelation directly from him in prayer, visions, or a “still small voice.” Second, they can learn from others such as a C.S. Lewis book, a sermon, or a conversation with a friend. Third, in a strange conglomeration of the first two, they can learn from the Bible--- direct revelation from God that has been transmitted and translated through human agents. And finally, they can look at God’s world. This last type is categorized as “general revelation” because it can tell us general things about God--- his greatness, his creativity, his sense of humor, but it cannot teach us the specific revelations of the Bible—Jesus, the God of Abraham, etc. The biblical authors freely relied on the general revelation of the natural world. When Jesus wanted to illustrate the uselessness of worry, he pointed his followers to the birds and the flowers (Luke 12:22-25); when God demonstrated his power to Job and his friends, he pointed them to the Leviathan, the mountain goat, the lion, the whirlwind (Job 40-42); David points his hearers to the sky to hear them “declare the glory of God” (Ps 19). Scientists just follow the Bible pattern to study God’s world more intensively and systematically than most people.

Fifth, study of science should lead us to awe. If nothing else, science should teach us humility. Since the start of the pandemic, many Americans have heard more scientists speak and write than they usually would, and how they talk has confused many. Scientists say things like “to the best of my knowledge,” “that is what the evidence is suggesting,” and “according to the evidence we have so far.” This does not mean that scientists do not know what they are talking about, but that they are so dwarfed by the vastness of knowledge they study that they are trained to leave the door open to being wrong.  When I read a work by a scientist, I can peak into their vast knowledge, gained over years or decades of research into a certain aspect of God’s creation. That person is exponentially smarter than me on this topic. And what God knows on the topic is infinitely more than what that expert knows. So, our response should be awe. We should humbly ask that expert to teach us more about these particular thoughts of God they are thinking after him.