Science and Religion:
A Christian's Response to Biology
Joaquin J. Garcia
Biology 410, Senior Seminar
Stan Grove
November 17, 1997
Thesis : In order to be true to their faith and
science, Christian biologists have an obligation to reflect their Christianity
in the realm of biology as well as their biological intellect in the realm
of Christianity.
Outline :
I. Introduction
II. History of science and religion
A. What caused the tension
B. Response to their relationship
high officials
lay people
C. What continues to maintain the tension
III. The opposing sides
A. The radical scientist
B. The conservative Christian
IV. The healing process
A. A common ground for science and Christianity
moderate conservative view
moderate liberal view
V. Christian's responsibility to the merging of ...
VI. Conclusion
Introduction
In the beginning, God created...the earth and the heavens, or an evolving
mass of matter, later to become the heavens and the earth? The conflict
between science and religion is a hot topic in many intellectual circles
today. One of the more controversial topics is creation versus evolution.
How did the world get to where it is right now? How was creation initiated?
Is there a Creator or was life created spontaneously? These are some of
the questions that boggle minds and set people searching for answers. There
is even a conflict within the church: Did God create the heavens and the
earth as they are, or did God allow the universe to develop according to
natural laws? This conflict between science and religion continues to hold
up in our supposed intellectual society. In order to tame this conflict
and be true to their faith and science, Christian biologists have an obligation
to reflect their Christianity in the realm of biology as well as their biological
intellect in the realm of Christianity.
History of Science and Religion
The history of opposition between science and religion has been steady for
about half of a century. As early as the 1500's, science and religion have
been antagonistic forces working against each other. Science was originally
founded by Christians to prove that humans lived in a orderly universe (Helweg,
1997). This would help to prove that the universe was created by a orderly
God who could be known. Once this was done, science was considered by the
church to be useless. When people began to further investigate the realm
of science, the church considered them to be heretics; working for the devil.
According to Easterbrook (1997), this tension was initiated with the use
of the Bible.
During the late 1500's, people were still primarily God fearing and relied
on the words of the Bible for guidence and comfort in their life. This is
a great idea if the motives are pure and unselfish. When the words of the
Bible are used for personal reasons, they can produce harm. This is exactly
what the theologians of this time did. Taking the words out of context and
out of their original language, early theologians used 1 Timothy 6:20 to
condemn science. The King James translation reads, "Keep that which
is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions
of science falsely so called." In contrast, the New International Version
reads, "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away
from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge."
This verse is a caution towards any talk that goes against Jesus' teachings,
not a caution against science as we know it today.
The relationship between the scholars and the working class people in Europe
did not help the situation. The scholars and the theologians of the pre-Enlightment
era belonged to high society and were able to dictate the laws of the land
as well as laws of God. The working class was poor, uneducated, and very
dependent on the laws dictated by the upper class. Basically, whatever the
theologians and scholars said, the working class were bound to by law. Therefore,
when the theologians said that science was the work of the devil, the God
fearing people, without question, believed them. Their inability to read
the Bible to challenge these statements limited their responses to what
they were taught by society; leaving them no other choice but to obey.
Due to these rules and laws, stereotypes began to develop in regard to the
two types of people; the scientists and the nonscientists. As Easterbrook
(1997) implies, during the early Enlightment period you were either a scientist
or you were a Christian; the two did not go together. Scientists were thought
of as God hating heathens, working in a magical realm. In a time when spontaneous
generation was considered an adequate explanation for many events, what
scientists proposed seemed to be supernatural to the lay people. For example,
if you wanted curdled milk, you simply place a lemon in a glass of milk
and within a few hours, you magically have curds. Simple chemical reactions
such as these would have been considered magic, not the reaction of chemicals.
Since scientists could explain these magical events, they were therefore
thought to be witches and wizards. The nonscientist group was seen in a
different way.
The nonscientists were thought of and considered to be God fearing Christians.
These people despised science and anyone who called themselves a scientist.
The majority of these people were the poor and uneducated part of society.
Therefore, in order to inherit the kingdom of God, they had to obey God's
rules that the theologians set before them. Since science was thought to
be a sin according to the theologians, the obedient people followed what
theologians said. It is understandable why an uneducated group of people
would find a problem with uniting science and religion, but living in a
supposed intellectual, modern society, this tension seems to be a sign of
a backsliding society.
With the cause of this tension so outdated, it is a wonder why their is
still a tension in our modern society. Helweg (1997) believes the conflict
that arises between science and religion today is due to three errors: (1)
a neglect to define the term evolution, (2) both sides failing to see science
as a result of a Christian worldview, and (3) both sides confusing the limits
of science and religion. There are two basic theories of evolution; microevolution,
species adapting to their environments in minor ways, and macroevolution,
the theory that humans evolved from a single cell. Helweg (1997) goes on
to say that evolution can be used to test Christian's values by stating
that the human race and the world we live in is the result of a purposeless
and natural process.
The Opposing Sides
With these early stereotypes and modern misinterpretations still present,
it is understandable how and why there has been a tension between science
and religion for such a long time. After five decades of butting heads,
science and religion have begun to mend their wounds. Before taking a closer
look at this middle ground, it is important to review the opposing sides;
the radical scientist and the conservative Christian. The topic of creation
versus evolution will be used to illustrate their differences.
On one side there is the radical, atheistic scientist. These people stand
by the natural laws and believe that what cannot be physically proven, does
not exist (Easterbrook, 1997). This train of thought was first introduced
by Darwin and his radical idea of evolution. Darwin was the first scientist
to verbally suggest an alternative to the God centered idea of creation.
Darwin theorized that all of life as we know it has been formed and molded
due to natural selection; species evolving according to their environment.
As Wright (1989) comments, "If God didn't design it, then the purpose
of an adaptation was no longer seen as an example of God's wisdom and loving
care for his creatures." One modern day believer of darwinism is the
acclaimed Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins. He states in Easterbrook's article,
"There is no evidence to support religion." Being a true disciple
of darwinism he also states, "We are machines for propagating DNA...It
is every living objects' sole reason for living. People who believe life
came into being for a purpose are not only mistaken, but ignorant: only
the scientifically illiterate accept the 'why' question where living creatures
are concerned."
On the opposing side is the conservative Christian. This person takes the
Bible literally, believing in miracles as well as the creation and flood
accounts, and stands against scientists who try to disprove what the Bible
is saying. Development in the medical field, such as improving medications,
is justified by this group as a needed science. However, when scientists
begin to challenge the Biblical stories, they see science as evil.
The Healing Process
Many scientists today believe that science and religion can coexist in a
symbiotic relationship. Physicist Charles Townes believes in this statement
and states in Easterbrook's (1997) article, "Science wants to know
the mechanism of the universe, religion the meaning. The two cannot be separated."
Physicist Russel Stannard agrees with Townes and states in Jones' (1996)
article, "Science tackes the questions about how the world operates...Why
are we here, is there purpose to life? Now there is a totally different
set of questions which science is not equipped to answer." The belief
that both science and religion are dependent on each other creates a mutual
respect not seen in previous decades.
Becoming aware of the limits set on science and on religion is a start toward
this union. Wright (1989), author of Biology Though the Eyes of Faith,
calls this complementarism. He states, "this approach simply
recognizes the limitations of both fields and allows them freedom to generate
their complementary explanations of the created world." Science is
used to describe God's creation; to discover how mechanisms work. Science
cannot explain purpose in life or why people do the things they do. These
types of questions are intended for religion. Vannevar Bush, past chairman
of the board of MIT, critiques science in Helweg's (1997) article, "Science
proves nothing absolutely. On the most vital questions, it does not even
produce evidence." In the same sense, religion, which guides our lives,
cannot answer questions of how mechanisms work. This is intended for science.
Helweg (1997) quotes Saint Augustine, "The Spirit of God who spoke
through them [authors of the Bible] did not choose to teach about the heavens
to men, as it was of no use for salvation." Helweg finishes off by
saying, "Theology and science are meant to be complements not combatants.
Science gives theology perspective, while theology gives science meaning."
Even though there is a common ground, there are different levels to this
common ground, ranging from moderate conservatives to moderate liberals.
The main theory that is adopted by the moderate conservative side in regard
to creation is the day-age theory. In this theory, the days of the creation
story are figurative days and are actually long periods of time. This theory
allows Christians to use the account of creation in the Bible and scientific
data as desciptive explanations of how the earth was created (Wright, 1989).
Hugh Ross, Ph. D., founder of the internet page Reasons to Believe
agrees with this theory. This web site is dedicated to Christians who are
concerned about science that are looking to unite the two. He states in
his article The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation that if you
read Genesis 1 literally, you will find that the information gathered is
consistent with the six lengthy epoch (Day-age) theory (Ross, 1997c). He
goes on to explain the reason why we do not see the rise of any new species
today is a result of being in the "seventh day" era, the day (era)
that God rests.
Dr. Ross also has some interesting ideas that link the dinosaurs to God's
creation. The chronology of the begining of life according to Dr. Ross goes
like this: In the begining, God created the earth and the heavens; the earth
was dark due to the thick overlay of dense clouds. Next, God allowed the
clouds to let light in, the land and the waters were separated, and then
plants were formed. God then allowed the clouds to break up so that the
sun, moon, and the stars were shown. Advanced animals were created next.
The dinosaurs were created more than 100 million years ago and were wiped
out by an explosion about 65 million years ago. Next came the birds and
mammals and then man-like mammals (hominids) appeared. Lastly, about 10-25
thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve. He also stated
that birds and mammals were different than the rest of the animals because
they can express their emotions and that the hominids were different from
us in that they did not have a spirit or conscience like we do (Ross, 1997a).
This is an account of how Dr. Ross perceives the way God created the universe.
According to Dr. Ross, this information is justified Biblically as well
as scientifically.
Dr. Ross (1997b) declares in his article Neandertal Takes a One-Eighty
that there is scientific evidence against the theory that Homo sapiens
is a descendent of the Neandertal species. He claims that researchers have
collected mitochondrial DNA from 20 Neandertal fossils and that it differs
from human mDNA by an average of 26 nucleotide links in the DNA chain. Ross
(1997b) states, "modern humans differed from one another in an average
of eight links...and those were independent of the 26 observed for the Neandertal
fossil." He concludes that the Neandertal species made no genetic contribution
to the human race.
The moderate liberals, on the other hand, take a different approach to relating
science and religion. These people see the Bible as a collection of God-inspired
stories not as events that actually took place. Russel Stannard explains
in Jones (1996) article, "What you get in Genesis are examples of myth,
a fictional storyline which acts as a vehicle for the real information you
are trying to get across." Wright (1989) describes this as the Framework
theory; the idea that Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote an artistic
account of how God relates to creation and our purpose in it. This theory
allows science and religion to have a compatible relationship.
The Christian's Resposibility
It is essential for Christians to get involved in whatever area of expertise
they hold and express their ideas amoung the many atheistic ones. Wright
(1989) claims that the evolutionary process is seen as a substitute for
divine action; replacing God. Is that what Christians want? He goes on to
say (Wright, 1989), "As Christians, we should insist that all processes
occuring in the natural world are governed by God as an outcome of Creation
Law." This statement should be stepped up a notch: As Christians, not
only should we insist that all processes come from God, but we should voice
our opinions. If we stay dormant, how can our opinions be heard? Colson
(1996) agrees. Referring to evolution, he states, "Christians need
to unite and meet this frontal attack with a reasoned apologetic on two
levels: scientific and philosophical."
Conclusion
So, is there a middle ground between the radical scientist and
the conservative Christian for science and religion to relate without sacrificing
personal beliefs? The answer to this question is yes. The most important
thing to keep is a close relationship with God. As long as you have this
bond, your relationships in other realms will reflect accordingly. It is
also important to recognize the boundaries of science and religion and respect
them. Doing so will strengthen either side and add to the validity of your
statements. As followers of Jesus, we should also keep in mind that the
road to salvation is not paved with scientific statements; it is paved with
the statements of Jesus Christ.
In conclusion, it is important to remember that we are only human and cannot
know everything, no matter how hard we try. Stephen Hawking states in Hughes'
(1996) article, "We yearn for certainty in an uncertain world."
With this in mind it is even more important for Christian biologists to
reflect their Christianity in biology as well as their biological intellect
in the realm of Christianity. Therefore, prioritize your life before beginning
to tackle the problem of uniting biology and Christianity; then act on it.
Works Cited
Colson, C., & Pearcey, N. (1996, August). Planet of the Apes? Christianity
Today, 40, 64.
Colson, C., & Pearcey, N. (1995, August). Reclaiming the Soul of
Science. Christianity Today, 64.
Easterbrook, G. (1997, Science). Science and God: A Warming Trend?
Science, 277, 890-893.
Helweg, O. J. (1997, March). Scientific Facts: Comparatible with Christian
Faith? USA Today, 125, 84.
Hughes, I. (1996, March). We are only Human... New Scientist,
60.
Jones, T. (1996, August). God and Scientists Reconciled. New Scientist,
46.
Ross, H. (1997a). Genesis One, Dinosaurs, and Cavemen.
[Online]. Available: http://www.reasons.org/resources/papers/dinocavemen.html.
[Oct. 1997].
Ross, H. (1997b). Neandertal Takes a One-Eighty. [Online].
Available: http://www.reasons.org/resources/FAF/97q3faf/neandertal.html.
[Oct. 1997].
Ross, H. (1997c). The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation.
[Online]. Available: http://www.reasons.org/resources/papers/shellgame.html.
[Oct. 1997].
Wright, R. T. (1989). Biology Through the Eyes of Faith. San
Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers.