God and Nature Summer 2024
|
|
By Terry F. Defoe
INTRODUCTION
In the 16th century, a revolution began with the goal of promoting the disciplined investigation of natural phenomena. According to pioneer scientist Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the untutored human mind is prone to errors, which scientific methodology seeks to identify and correct. Bacon also said that God speaks to humanity through the Book of his Word—the Holy Scriptures—as well as through the Book of his Works—the natural realm. Rightly understood, Bacon argued, these two books do not contradict each other. Together, they reveal important spiritual truths about God and humanity, as well as about nature and the cosmos (1).
Early editions of Darwin’s Origin of Species quoted Bacon’s statement on God’s two books with approval. Many scientists today agree. As biologist and faithful Christian Gary Fugle says: “…we cannot comfortably argue that God created one reliable source of information in the Bible and created a second conflicting, unreliable source in nature” (2). But even in earlier ages, before Bacon, many scholars expressed that both biblical and scientific truth mattered and could not contradict each other. For medieval Jewish philosopher and astronomer Moses Maimonides (1135?–1204), the Scriptures are trustworthy, but if they disagree with verified science, it is time to review their interpretation (3). Many centuries earlier, Church Father Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) declared that all truth is God’s truth (4). Bacon’s contemporary Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Lutheran astronomer, mathematician, and key figure in 17th-century science, was a person of faith. His faith and his science, working together, provided fresh insights into God’s creation (5).
INTRODUCTION
In the 16th century, a revolution began with the goal of promoting the disciplined investigation of natural phenomena. According to pioneer scientist Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the untutored human mind is prone to errors, which scientific methodology seeks to identify and correct. Bacon also said that God speaks to humanity through the Book of his Word—the Holy Scriptures—as well as through the Book of his Works—the natural realm. Rightly understood, Bacon argued, these two books do not contradict each other. Together, they reveal important spiritual truths about God and humanity, as well as about nature and the cosmos (1).
Early editions of Darwin’s Origin of Species quoted Bacon’s statement on God’s two books with approval. Many scientists today agree. As biologist and faithful Christian Gary Fugle says: “…we cannot comfortably argue that God created one reliable source of information in the Bible and created a second conflicting, unreliable source in nature” (2). But even in earlier ages, before Bacon, many scholars expressed that both biblical and scientific truth mattered and could not contradict each other. For medieval Jewish philosopher and astronomer Moses Maimonides (1135?–1204), the Scriptures are trustworthy, but if they disagree with verified science, it is time to review their interpretation (3). Many centuries earlier, Church Father Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) declared that all truth is God’s truth (4). Bacon’s contemporary Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Lutheran astronomer, mathematician, and key figure in 17th-century science, was a person of faith. His faith and his science, working together, provided fresh insights into God’s creation (5).
Science denial is often associated with a faulty understanding of the methodological limitations of science. |
Contemporary British physicist Brian Cox, who identifies as a nonbeliever but opposes what he sees as “toxic” dogmatism and polarization on all sides, quotes Belgian Roman Catholic priest and professor of physics Georges LeMaître (1894-1966), who said: “There are two paths to truth and I have decided to follow both of them” (6).
The words from the 111th Psalm, inscribed above the great door of the Cavendish Library at Cambridge University (7), can indeed inspire all scientists of faith: “Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them.”
ANCIENT SCIENCE
Although the Bible speaks of natural phenomena, it is not a book of science. The “science” in the Bible provides valuable insights into the best knowledge of the day—knowledge that was pre-scientific, not anti-scientific. From today’s perspective, that information was often inaccurate, speculative, and incomplete. The Bible’s science is ancient science, phenomenological (common-sense) in approach, gathered through limited and often fallible human senses. The motivation of those ancient authors was no doubt honorable. Through no fault of their own, they lacked the proper methods and tools that would enable them to more accurately understand the natural realm.
Simply put, scientific methodology is designed to enable investigators to move beyond speculation to knowledge based on data and empirical evidence. Science has demonstrated, for instance, that the earth is ancient, that microscopic life abounds in a drop of pond water, and that light emanating from the stars reveals their chemical makeup.
WARFARE MODEL
Darwin’s On the Origin of Species has been problematic for traditional Christians since the day it was published (8). Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878), for example, claimed that evolutionary theory is inherently atheistic because it accounts for design in nature without the need for divine intervention (9). Evangelicals, in general, have a great deal of spiritual capital invested in the creation accounts in Genesis. Some claim that a correct understanding of the text validates the truth of the gospel, supports the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy, and protects the authority of Holy Scripture. Many argue that Darwin’s theory is based on man’s word, while their views are based on the word of God. For these individuals, there is nothing—nothing in God’s word, that is—that would indicate evolution is true. Compromise or accommodation is out of the question.
Two 19th-century books that describe the science-faith relationship in terms of warfare have set the tone for much of the science-faith discussion ever since. Both describe the relationship in terms of warfare. English chemist John W. Draper’s (1811-1882) History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (10) went through fifty printings in fifty years. Draper argued that “The history of science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other…. Faith is in its nature unchangeable, stationary; Science is in its nature progressive; and eventually a divergence between them, impossible to conceal, must take place” (10, Preface).
The other book, titled A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (11), was written by American historian Andrew Dixon White (1832-1918), the founder of Cornell University. White was especially frustrated with what he perceived as religion’s attempts to interfere with science, a situation which, in his opinion "... has resulted in the direst evils, both to religion and to science and ... on the other hand, all untrammeled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of its stages may have seemed for the time to be, has invariably resulted in the highest good both of religion and of science” (12).
The warfare model continues to be perpetuated by a small group of scientists and philosophers, the so-called New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Jerry Coyne. Research suggests that this radical group represents perhaps five percent of scientists worldwide but, because of disproportionate media coverage, the general public perceives their numbers to be far greater than they really are (13).
Baptist theologian Bernard Ramm (1916-1992) has characterized the approach taken by various faith groups to science as either “noble” or “ignoble.” The noble approach is irenic, marked by respectful conversation. The ignoble approach, on the other hand, is polemical, attacking and demeaning opponents. Ramm claimed that those he characterized as hyper-orthodox have done great damage to the relationship of science and religion (14).
SCIENCE DENIAL
Christians typically respond to evolutionary theory in one of three ways: engage, ignore, or deny. Mainstream Christianity has chosen to engage. Most evangelicals, on the other hand, have chosen to either ignore or deny. Despite the fact that, for almost two hundred years, geologists have demonstrated that the earth is exceedingly ancient, young-earth creationists continue to insist that the earth is six-to-ten thousand years old. This rejection is based on a particular interpretation of Scripture’s creation accounts, an approach some have called “interpretive malpractice” (15).
Science denial is often associated with a faulty understanding of the methodological limitations of science. It includes, but is not limited to, a rejection of evolutionary biology, climate change, GMO foods, vaccinations, geological consensus regarding the age of the earth and the cosmos, and scientific expertise in general, including epidemiology in the midst of a pandemic.
CONCLUSION
Surprisingly, considering his agnosticism, paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) was concerned about biblical literacy. He was disappointed to discover that when he quoted the Bible or Shakespeare in his university classes, most students were unable to recognize the source (16). But lack of science literacy is just as common and often provides fertile ground for error. As Astronomer Guy Consolmagno, a Jesuit priest and director of the Vatican Observatory, said in an interview on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada's equivalent to NPR) that many creationists have only a grade-school knowledge of science, while many scientists, on the other hand, have only a grade-school knowledge of faith (17).
Depth of knowledge matters. Paleontologist and biologist Niles Eldredge once said that it’s not possible to understand the internal combustion engine standing on a street corner watching cars whiz by (18), while Louis Pasteur [1822-1895], famous chemist and bacteriologist, is reported to have said that fortune favors the prepared mind (19). An evangelical pastor, who has adopted an evolutionary perspective says:
I am deeply invested in presenting the gospel in an intellectually credible fashion to nonbelievers in our culture. For this reason, I think it is incredibly significant that, from Galileo’s inquisition to the Scopes trial to the present evolution debates, whenever the church has assumed a rigid opposition to the consensus of the scientific community, it has eventually harmed the credibility of the church in the eyes of the broader culture (20).
The scientific revolution continues, and, if anything, its impact grows greater with every passing year. What the world needs is a fresh infusion of disciplined, dispassionate, and rational thought. God’s Two Books accomplish far more working together than they do on their own.
References
1. Giberson, K., and F. Collins. 2011. The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions. London, UK. p. 113.
2. Fugle, G. 2015. Laying Down Arms to Heal the Creation - Evolution Divide. Eugene, OR.: Wipf & Stock. p. 225.
3. Krauss, L. 2009. "Religion vs. Science." In The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does It Continue? edited by H. Attridge, London, UK.: Yale University Press.
4. Lindberg, David C. 2010. "The Fate of Science in Patristic and Medieval Christendom." In The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion. Kindle edition., edited by P. Harrison, 25, loc.664. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press. p. 24.
5. McLeish, T. 2014. Faith and Wisdom in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 14.
6. Woods, M. 2016. Professor Brian Cox condemns 'toxic' rows between science and religion. September 9. https://www.christiantoday.com/article/professor.brian.cox.condemns.toxic.rows.between.science.and.religion/95038.htm
7. Murphy, G. 2003. "Remembering God's People." In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by K.B. Miller, 524-526. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans. p. 524.
8. Darwin, C. The Origin of Species. HarperCollins Publishers, 2011.
9 Numbers, R. 2006. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. London, Harvard University Press. p. 26.
10. Draper, J.W. 1874. History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science. New York, NY.
11. White, A. 1896. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. London: MacMillan and Co. Ltd.
12. Quoted in Gould, S. 1995. Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History. New York, NY.: Harmony. p. 47.
13. Ecklund, E. 2010. Religion Vs. Science - What Scientists Really Think. New York, NY.: Oxford University Press.
14. Numbers, R. 2006. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. London, Harvard University Press. p. 210.
15. Walton, John H., and D. Brent Sandy. 2013. The Lost World of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL.: IVP Academic. p. 121.
16. Gould, S. J. 2011. Dinosaur in a Haystack. Harvard University Press. p. 86.
17. Consolmagno, G. 2013. Interview on Quirks and Quarks. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Toronto. March 30.
18. Eldredge, N. 1995. Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory. New York; Chichester: Wiley. p. 76.
19. Gould, S 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York, NY: Norton. P. 142.
20. Boyd, G. 2016. "Pastoral Reflections: Whether or Not There Was a Historical Adam, Our Faith Is Secure." In Four Views on the Historical Adam, edited by M. Barrett and A. Caneday. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. p.261.
Terry Defoe was educated at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia (BA, Sociology, 1978), Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon Saskatchewan (M.Div., 1982), and the Open Learning University, Burnaby British Columbia (BA, Psychology, 2003). Defoe served as a chaplain at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. He has been interested in the science/faith dialog for more than 30 years. His intellectual journey took him from young-earth creationism to an evolutionary perspective.
The words from the 111th Psalm, inscribed above the great door of the Cavendish Library at Cambridge University (7), can indeed inspire all scientists of faith: “Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them.”
ANCIENT SCIENCE
Although the Bible speaks of natural phenomena, it is not a book of science. The “science” in the Bible provides valuable insights into the best knowledge of the day—knowledge that was pre-scientific, not anti-scientific. From today’s perspective, that information was often inaccurate, speculative, and incomplete. The Bible’s science is ancient science, phenomenological (common-sense) in approach, gathered through limited and often fallible human senses. The motivation of those ancient authors was no doubt honorable. Through no fault of their own, they lacked the proper methods and tools that would enable them to more accurately understand the natural realm.
Simply put, scientific methodology is designed to enable investigators to move beyond speculation to knowledge based on data and empirical evidence. Science has demonstrated, for instance, that the earth is ancient, that microscopic life abounds in a drop of pond water, and that light emanating from the stars reveals their chemical makeup.
WARFARE MODEL
Darwin’s On the Origin of Species has been problematic for traditional Christians since the day it was published (8). Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878), for example, claimed that evolutionary theory is inherently atheistic because it accounts for design in nature without the need for divine intervention (9). Evangelicals, in general, have a great deal of spiritual capital invested in the creation accounts in Genesis. Some claim that a correct understanding of the text validates the truth of the gospel, supports the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy, and protects the authority of Holy Scripture. Many argue that Darwin’s theory is based on man’s word, while their views are based on the word of God. For these individuals, there is nothing—nothing in God’s word, that is—that would indicate evolution is true. Compromise or accommodation is out of the question.
Two 19th-century books that describe the science-faith relationship in terms of warfare have set the tone for much of the science-faith discussion ever since. Both describe the relationship in terms of warfare. English chemist John W. Draper’s (1811-1882) History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (10) went through fifty printings in fifty years. Draper argued that “The history of science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other…. Faith is in its nature unchangeable, stationary; Science is in its nature progressive; and eventually a divergence between them, impossible to conceal, must take place” (10, Preface).
The other book, titled A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (11), was written by American historian Andrew Dixon White (1832-1918), the founder of Cornell University. White was especially frustrated with what he perceived as religion’s attempts to interfere with science, a situation which, in his opinion "... has resulted in the direst evils, both to religion and to science and ... on the other hand, all untrammeled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of its stages may have seemed for the time to be, has invariably resulted in the highest good both of religion and of science” (12).
The warfare model continues to be perpetuated by a small group of scientists and philosophers, the so-called New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Jerry Coyne. Research suggests that this radical group represents perhaps five percent of scientists worldwide but, because of disproportionate media coverage, the general public perceives their numbers to be far greater than they really are (13).
Baptist theologian Bernard Ramm (1916-1992) has characterized the approach taken by various faith groups to science as either “noble” or “ignoble.” The noble approach is irenic, marked by respectful conversation. The ignoble approach, on the other hand, is polemical, attacking and demeaning opponents. Ramm claimed that those he characterized as hyper-orthodox have done great damage to the relationship of science and religion (14).
SCIENCE DENIAL
Christians typically respond to evolutionary theory in one of three ways: engage, ignore, or deny. Mainstream Christianity has chosen to engage. Most evangelicals, on the other hand, have chosen to either ignore or deny. Despite the fact that, for almost two hundred years, geologists have demonstrated that the earth is exceedingly ancient, young-earth creationists continue to insist that the earth is six-to-ten thousand years old. This rejection is based on a particular interpretation of Scripture’s creation accounts, an approach some have called “interpretive malpractice” (15).
Science denial is often associated with a faulty understanding of the methodological limitations of science. It includes, but is not limited to, a rejection of evolutionary biology, climate change, GMO foods, vaccinations, geological consensus regarding the age of the earth and the cosmos, and scientific expertise in general, including epidemiology in the midst of a pandemic.
CONCLUSION
Surprisingly, considering his agnosticism, paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) was concerned about biblical literacy. He was disappointed to discover that when he quoted the Bible or Shakespeare in his university classes, most students were unable to recognize the source (16). But lack of science literacy is just as common and often provides fertile ground for error. As Astronomer Guy Consolmagno, a Jesuit priest and director of the Vatican Observatory, said in an interview on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada's equivalent to NPR) that many creationists have only a grade-school knowledge of science, while many scientists, on the other hand, have only a grade-school knowledge of faith (17).
Depth of knowledge matters. Paleontologist and biologist Niles Eldredge once said that it’s not possible to understand the internal combustion engine standing on a street corner watching cars whiz by (18), while Louis Pasteur [1822-1895], famous chemist and bacteriologist, is reported to have said that fortune favors the prepared mind (19). An evangelical pastor, who has adopted an evolutionary perspective says:
I am deeply invested in presenting the gospel in an intellectually credible fashion to nonbelievers in our culture. For this reason, I think it is incredibly significant that, from Galileo’s inquisition to the Scopes trial to the present evolution debates, whenever the church has assumed a rigid opposition to the consensus of the scientific community, it has eventually harmed the credibility of the church in the eyes of the broader culture (20).
The scientific revolution continues, and, if anything, its impact grows greater with every passing year. What the world needs is a fresh infusion of disciplined, dispassionate, and rational thought. God’s Two Books accomplish far more working together than they do on their own.
References
1. Giberson, K., and F. Collins. 2011. The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions. London, UK. p. 113.
2. Fugle, G. 2015. Laying Down Arms to Heal the Creation - Evolution Divide. Eugene, OR.: Wipf & Stock. p. 225.
3. Krauss, L. 2009. "Religion vs. Science." In The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does It Continue? edited by H. Attridge, London, UK.: Yale University Press.
4. Lindberg, David C. 2010. "The Fate of Science in Patristic and Medieval Christendom." In The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion. Kindle edition., edited by P. Harrison, 25, loc.664. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press. p. 24.
5. McLeish, T. 2014. Faith and Wisdom in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 14.
6. Woods, M. 2016. Professor Brian Cox condemns 'toxic' rows between science and religion. September 9. https://www.christiantoday.com/article/professor.brian.cox.condemns.toxic.rows.between.science.and.religion/95038.htm
7. Murphy, G. 2003. "Remembering God's People." In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by K.B. Miller, 524-526. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans. p. 524.
8. Darwin, C. The Origin of Species. HarperCollins Publishers, 2011.
9 Numbers, R. 2006. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. London, Harvard University Press. p. 26.
10. Draper, J.W. 1874. History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science. New York, NY.
11. White, A. 1896. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. London: MacMillan and Co. Ltd.
12. Quoted in Gould, S. 1995. Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History. New York, NY.: Harmony. p. 47.
13. Ecklund, E. 2010. Religion Vs. Science - What Scientists Really Think. New York, NY.: Oxford University Press.
14. Numbers, R. 2006. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. London, Harvard University Press. p. 210.
15. Walton, John H., and D. Brent Sandy. 2013. The Lost World of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL.: IVP Academic. p. 121.
16. Gould, S. J. 2011. Dinosaur in a Haystack. Harvard University Press. p. 86.
17. Consolmagno, G. 2013. Interview on Quirks and Quarks. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Toronto. March 30.
18. Eldredge, N. 1995. Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory. New York; Chichester: Wiley. p. 76.
19. Gould, S 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York, NY: Norton. P. 142.
20. Boyd, G. 2016. "Pastoral Reflections: Whether or Not There Was a Historical Adam, Our Faith Is Secure." In Four Views on the Historical Adam, edited by M. Barrett and A. Caneday. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. p.261.
Terry Defoe was educated at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia (BA, Sociology, 1978), Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon Saskatchewan (M.Div., 1982), and the Open Learning University, Burnaby British Columbia (BA, Psychology, 2003). Defoe served as a chaplain at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. He has been interested in the science/faith dialog for more than 30 years. His intellectual journey took him from young-earth creationism to an evolutionary perspective.