Lesson 3 - How Do the Bible and Science Relate?

Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame. - Albert Einstein

The heavens declare the glory of God; and their expanse declares the work of His hands. - Psalm 19:1


Is Science Our Savior?

In their book, How Now Shall We Live? (ch. 26), Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey review the state of this debate. Today many, if not most, Western secular people hold the view (implicitly or explicitly) that science and technology is our salvation, taking us onward and upward along the path to a utopian future. We humans, as the apex of evolution, have the intelligence to control nature and bend it to our purposes. The solution to our social problems therefore lies in our hands, through the exertion of our human intelligence and ingenuity. Because this worldview has no name, no label, no church, and no rituals, most people don’t identify it as a religion, or even a distinctive belief system. It’s simply an assumption of the current Western mind.

This “religion of progress” really took off after Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1859. By providing scientific sanction for evolution, Darwin’s theory gave enormous impetus to the idea of endless, universal progress. But it was English philosopher Herbert Spencer, who expanded evolution into the comprehensive philosophy – evolutionism – which covers all of reality from stars to societies. It turned evolution into a gospel and a secular substitute for Christian faith. Faith in progress replaced the doctrine of creation and providence and gave us “scientific” assurance that the universe is not really purposeless. 19th century French philosopher Auguste Comte – the founder of sociology – proposed that all societies pass through three stages of evolution. The most primitive is the theological stage, where people seek supernatural explanations for events; the second is the metaphysical stage, where people explain the world in abstract philosophical concepts; and the highest is the scientific stage, where people find truth though scientific experimentation. Although raised a Catholic, by age 14 Comte announced that he had “naturally ceased believing in God.” He actually founded an alternative religion called the Religion of Humanity, complete with churches and hymns and calendars listing special days for the “saints” of science and philosophy – with himself as its high priest!

Even certain strains of “liberation ideologies”, e.g., Marxism, see science rather than revolution as the source of salvation. The idea of creating a new and improved race is a key component in many forms of scientific utopianism. In the 1930’s geneticist H. J. Muller divided history into three stages: In the first stage, life is completely at the mercy of the environment; in the second stage, human beings appear and reverse the order, learning how to reach out and control the environment; and in the third stage, humans reach inside and control their own nature. Humanity will “shape itself into an increasingly sublime creation – a being beside which the mythical divinities of the past will seem more and more ridiculous,” Muller wrote. This godlike being surveys the entire universe and “setting its own marvelous inner powers against the brute Goliath of the suns and planets, challenges them to contest.” Today we see science turned into salvation. Nobel Prize laureate Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA, wrote: “We can expect to see major efforts to improve the nature of man himself with the next ten thousand years.”

But how does “salvation by science” stack up against reality? Not very well. Science itself gives no moral guidelines. In genetic experimentation, for example, do we want to create a super-Einstein or a super-Mother Teresa? Are we going to create a class of subhuman slaves to do our menial work? Science does not deal with the real issues of morality and values. Remaking human nature genetically would strip people of their dignity and reduce them to commodities. Today technology offers choice and control over the embryo’s traits so that having a child may become more like purchasing a consumer product – a designer baby. What happens when the “product” doesn’t meet the required specification? Will it be disposed of like an unwanted computer? When children become products we manufacture rather than a gift from God we will do irreparable damage to human dignity. It is beginning to happen already.

Many scientists offer uncritical acceptance of genetic engineering. Why? Because they have faith in “inevitable progress” – the Escalator Myth that “change” will always be for the better. But clearly, change can be either good or evil – for improvement or for degeneration. The faith that we can save ourselves through science and technology can be sustained only if we shut our eyes to the human capacity for barbarism. When one considers the supposed evolutionary process requires tens of thousands or millions of years to take us up even one step the evolutionary ladder, the idea that we can control our desired end-result is preposterous. This is utter pie-in-the-sky blind faith. Many thoughtful scientists find it hard to go along with this blind-faith. Physicist Stephen Hawking warns that evolution will not improve the human race quickly enough to temper our aggression and avoid extinction. But instead of turning to God he and others turn their salvation hopes to a civilization of extraterrestrials who may have successfully evolved to a more advanced stage and are willing to help us. Even our government has bought into this hope and has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence), scanning the heavens with powerful radio telescopes in the hope of picking up signals from another civilization. The assumption is that if we discover another civilization in space, we will confirm the evolutionary process, and that the supposed advanced civilization will pass on to us their scientific knowledge and save us! This is obviously a religious hope – a hope for the world’s redemption.

Carl Sagan popularized this metaphysical view of friendly and helpful extraterrestrials on his popular PBS TV series, Cosmos. He never explained how an alien race that never had any contact with the Earth would just happen to know what our problems are and how and why they would go about solving them for us. Why don’t the aliens just eat us rather than save us? Disguised as science, this dream is nothing more than magical and wishful thinking – a dream based on the faith that Science is our Savior. None of this scientific over-optimism ever involves an understanding of the sin nature of man, or a change of heart. It assumes that humanity’s problems are not caused by wrong moral choices, but by a lack of knowledge! Sagan promised that the longed-for SETI message will enable us to control nature and society, with no need for dealing with troublesome things like morality. To him, we can control society for its own good through the inviolable laws of “cultural evolution.”

History, however, gives us a more realistic perspective. The Hitlers, Stalins, Husseins, Bin Ladens and Jongs of the world are not short of knowledge that prevent them from doing good. They are simply evil. Bigger and better technology just gives them, and others, bigger and better means to exercise their evil. It is the human heart that determines how we will use science and technology, for evil or for good. We don’t need extraterrestrial messages to give us insight. We already have a message from outer space: “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth,” and “He became flesh and dwelt among us.”

Science

The word “science” is derived from the Latin for “knowledge.” In its broadest and original sense “science” means to pursue knowledge about the nature of reality in a systematic and logical way and follow that path wherever it may lead. Science in this sense is a method of inquiry, classification and testing of knowledge. Its methods improve our common sense by forcing us to be logically consistent. The scientific method extends our reach by stimulating us to empirically observe reality and formulate hypotheses about its nature. It helps us design tests and collect evidence to support or falsify those hypotheses. Even though it is not always possible to test hypotheses, scientific methodology can continually improve our understanding of reality because the process is cumulative and over time it will be self-correcting -- as long as there are no dogmatic obstacles in the way.

The modern redefinition of science

In the 19th century, scientific methodology started abandoning its original mission to pursue “truth wherever it may lead.” Today, science limits itself to pursuing truth only along the narrow path of the material or physical world, i.e., naturalism. Issues outside the physical or material realm, such as the very nature of truth, existence, mind, causation, rationality, life, purpose, freedom, and so on, are left to the philosophers and theologians. I have attempted to capture this partitioning in the diagram below. Naturalism works on problems of a physical nature, whereas philosophy and theology deal with matters of a transcendent nature, i.e., beyond (transcendent to) the physical world. Today many assume that the transcendent world does not “really” exist; or if it does it has no “real” interaction with the material world. That, however, is mere speculation. It should be obvious that the transcendent world is more than mere philosophical presupposition. Take, for example, man’s propensity for love, hope, faith, justice, to name a few. These defy material explanation. Even “humor” reminds us that man is captured within the finiteness of his person, and “play” gives us a clue that joy is real and has limits. Naturalism cannot explain consciousness let alone these complex manifestations of consciousness.

When discussing the creation/evolution issue it is important to note that one is dealing with both physical and philosophical issues. Understanding mutation and natural selection of a species is science. However, answering the question, “Where did the original material come from and why?” is a transcendent (philosophical/theological) matter. Evolution must presuppose creation of some sort, otherwise there would be no raw material to operate upon.[i]

Philosophy

The word philosophy is derived from the Greek word for “love of wisdom.” Its four major divisions are shown in the diagram below. Metaphysics, is the investigation of origins and ultimate questions. Epistemology deals with the origin, limits and validation of knowledge, i.e., how we know anything is “true.” Ethics deals with the nature of morality; and Aesthetics, the nature of beauty. One should ponder the fact that the most important quests for knowledge in our lives do not lend themselves to understanding through naturalism because scientific inquiry has redefined and limited itself to a very narrow path -- that of sensory perception only. Naturalism alone has nothing to say on issues of “good and bad” and “right and wrong,” but ethics does. Naturalism can not draw conclusions about the nature of beauty (e.g., is something art or junk?), but aesthetics can. There are natural limits to our understanding of the material world and we quickly reach those limits as soon one asks questions like: What existed before the Big Bang? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the meaning and purpose of life? Why are we here? Where are we going? These are issues of metaphysics and theology. And, if we ever attempt to know anything about the nature of “truth” itself (e.g., what is “reality?” how do we know our conclusions are “true” given our own biases and beliefs? etc.) -- naturalism can not help us at all. Only epistemology can.

Theology

The word “theology” is derived from Greek and literally means, “speaking or thinking about God.” Since God cannot be empirically investigated, theology is a discipline of philosophy. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is transcendent, i.e., He exists beyond the realm of the natural world.[ii] In the figure below, the box represent the limits of naturalism. Evidence for the existence of God, who is “outside the box,” as well as His participation in the natural world, can be deduced through scientific inquiry and reason from “inside the box.” Unfortunately, secular centers of learning arbitrarily impose limits on the scope of scientific inquiry, represented by the “walls” of the box. This prohibits philosophical propositions (e.g., the God-hypothesis) from ever being considered on its “scientific” merit. Not that empirical methods can be employed to “test” for God, but scientific methodology (viz., logic, evidence gathering, hypothesis-testing, etc.) can and should be deployed to deduce that one hypothesis is more likely than another, even if that hypothesis is philosophical in nature, i.e., from the fields of metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics and/or epistemology.

Science and philosophy

Scientific methodology can be helpful in any field of inquiry that is committed to the pursuit of truth. Evolution is practiced as a philosophy (naturalism) as much as it is a science and as such it should be examined by the disciplines upon which it makes those truth claims -- be it philosophy, history, or social science, etc. If evolution is evaluated in this broader context, the weight of evidence reveals the flaws of the grand scheme of evolution. On the contrary, the evidence reveals the “intelligent design” by a Designer who made us in His image and cares for us -- a God who is the originator of truth and beauty, and who is of perfect moral character and therefore worthy of worship and obedience. This kind of thinking is an anathema to the naturalistically programmed mind of today’s scientists.






Science is founded on philosophical assumptions that are not themselves scientifically verifiable. It assumes, for example, that the universe exists (i.e., it is not an illusion) and exhibits various kinds of order that can be known: That there are formal classifications of things, objects, events, facts, etc. which are uniform throughout the universe. Hence, H20 is water on earth, on Mars and anywhere else in the universe. It is not one thing here on earth and something else at another location in the universe. It assumes that mathematics and numbers, which are abstractions, actually correspond to the reality of the things they describe. And, that our senses are reliable in knowing the external world; and that our intellects are reliable in conceptualizing its phenomena. These are all philosophical assumptions that cannot be verified by science, but are mandatory to its proper functioning.

Naturalism is a subset of science (shown in the diagram as “the box”), and it assumes that “nature is all there is.” It assumes that only things that can be known by the senses and empirically tested are true. This is not a scientifically verifiable notion. It presupposes the nature of reality to be material only. Think about that for a moment. If only scientific statements are valid, and this statement is not scientific, then this statement is not valid! Science by that definition is self-refuting. At one time it was clearly understood that science could not be practiced in a vacuum – it was clearly understood to be based on philosophical premises. But, today most scientific education draws rigid lines between science and philosophy and pretends that they do not overlap. Or worse yet, science does not make clear distinctions about itself and philosophy and ends up confusing those who practice it. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the evolution/creation controversy.

Naturalism and theology

In the evolution/creation controversy we are clearly comparing a naturalistic hypothesis against a theological (philosophical) hypothesis. Since God is immaterial, no “material” evidence for His existence could ever be observed directly (e.g., seeing God’s “fingers”). However, God’s existence can be inferred scientifically by observing His “fingerprints,” i.e., the impact of His immaterial presence in the material world or the intelligent design of His creation; discovering that evidence is a legitimate scientific endeavor and not just philosophical speculation. Drawing a scientific hypothesis about a certain physical phenomenon without direct observation of the causing agent, i.e., inferring the agent’s presence (looking for its “fingerprints”), is done all the time in science. On April 16, 1999 it was reported that astronomers found another planetary system similar to our own circling the star Upsilon Andromedae some 264 trillion miles away. These planets cannot be seen directly even with the most powerful telescopes, but astronomers can infer their existence by careful study of their gravitational “effects” on the host star. Robert Noyes, a Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer said the new observations should dispel any doubts that these objects exist. It is legitimate to infer that the causing agent is indeed the planets circling the host star, even if they cannot be directly observed. Now ask, “What is the ultimate causing agent for the existence of the planets?” That is also a legitimate scientific question and could be answered if that sort of question were “allowed” to be pursued scientifically, i.e., following the evidence wherever the truth may lead – an inference to the best explanation.

Science + philosophy/theology give total perspective

Evidence for a Creator is a legitimate “truth question” for science to pursue since the answers it generates have profound impact on fundamental scientific principles, e.g., cause/effect; origin of matter and energy, time and space; human consciousness; intelligent design or chance, etc. However, science would have to “allow” the Creator to give evidence for Himself. In today’s naturalism, any positive evidence for the immaterial is ignored by definition and any investigation of it is reinterpreted in materialistic terms. One does not know beforehand (a priori) if a causing-agent (in particular, the initial causing-agent) is material or immaterial. In naturalism, one just mandates that the agent is material or ignores the question altogether leaving it for the philosophers and theologians to deal with independently. I maintain that science and philosophy/theology should cooperate and inform one another and in the process yield a much broader perspective on the true nature of things.[iii]

Contrary to popular belief, there is no clear understanding of exactly what science is. There are no agreed upon necessary and sufficient conditions that distinguish what is scientific from what is not scientific. This is because science is a collection of different activities that are useful in pursuing truth, but draw no impermeable barriers between itself and non-science. Nothing about science precludes philosophical or theological concepts from entering its very fabric. It is not an airtight compartment of study isolated from other fields of knowledge.

As previously noted, naturalism is a scientifically self-refuting notion. Something so obviously self-refuting should not be allowed to be a reigning paradigm in all matters. Naturalism is a valid assumption within its limits of explaining things in the physical world. But as it reaches the “boundary” (as shown in the diagram) philosophy/theology becomes the rising and eventually reigning paradigm.

Science is an inductive[iv] and hence self-correcting process as more data is accumulated. The history of science demonstrates that major advances in knowledge production are normally made in quantum jumps (paradigm shifts). That means that at any one time the reigning paradigm may be very (totally?) inaccurate (false?). For example, consider:

• The theory of combustion: At first the reigning paradigm was phlogiston; today it is oxygen. In the future will it change?


• The center of the solar system: At first it was the earth; now it’s the sun. In the future will it change?


• The theory of mechanics: It was Newtonian, now it’s General Relativity. In the future what it will be?


• The theory of origins: It was creation, now its evolution. In future what will it be?

Any theories and conclusions in science must be held tentatively, and alternative theories should not be summarily dismissed without evidentiary support. The current accepted paradigm should be the one that best fits the evidence to-date, not one arbitrarily chosen by philosophical presupposition.

Disciplines other than science do in fact tell us truth about the world. For example, history, law, mathematics, ethics, aesthetics, and philosophy produce (true) knowledge, which many times is better than that produced by science. Consider:

• I am more certain that the Invasion of Normandy took place on June 6, 1944 than I am that the center of the earth is molten iron.


• I am more certain that the laws of logic are true than I am that the planets around Upsilon Andromedae exist.


• I am more certain that torturing babies for fun is immoral than I am that man evolved from an amoebae.


• I am 100% certain that I love my wife and children


• I am 100% certain that I exist.

Naturalistic science is very narrow in its scope of applicability. In fact, naturalism does not answer any of the really important questions of life:

• How can I be happy?


• What is love?


• What is beauty?


• Is there absolute truth?


• How do I live a fulfilled life?


• What is a life well lived?


• Is there a hereafter?


• Where am I going? Where did I come from?


• Is there a purpose to my life?


• Is there a God?

Since the scope of naturalism is so limited (by its own choosing), it should not be so dogmatic – insisting at every turn what is to be included in its purview and what must be excluded. Non-material things really exist. Consciousness, numbers, laws of logic, morality, virtue, beauty, truth, love, among many other important aspects of our universe really exist. Science alone is not equipped to explain the existence of these things nor their function. Naturalism, the belief that only material things exist, cannot account for these things, hence a science based strictly on naturalism gives a very incomplete picture of the world. Naturalism limits scientific inquiry, it does not facilitate it.

It is impossible, practically speaking, to totally separate science and religion. Many scientific pronouncements have impact, by their very nature, on the way we view the world and how we view human beings, e.g., how human beings were created; what the value of human life is, etc? These issues invoke religious or metaphysical considerations and to claim otherwise is sheer folly.

Science and Theology
Just a few hundred years ago theology was considered the “queen of the sciences” and science was a branch of philosophy called Natural Philosophy. Today, science has uncritically and arbitrarily drawn lines of demarcation (walls of separation) between itself, theology and philosophy. On the university campus, the schools of science and engineering are generally considered the paragon of intellectual thought in our scientific and technological age. The schools of philosophy are considered unimportant in comparison. Christian theology has been marginalized entirely and driven off campus to the Bible colleges. It wasn’t always like that. Harvard University was founded for “Christ and the Church.” The Latin word “Veritas” (Divine Truth) is still on its seal. The primary goal of the founders of Yale University was to assure that: “Every student shall consider the main end of his study to know God in Jesus Christ.” Today, even the academic study of God (particularly the Christian belief about Him), is considered irrelevant by the mainstream intellectual community. In the university, authority to describe “how things really are” has been arbitrarily given to the natural sciences.

Persons who base their thinking on the premise that God is real may be considered irrational, even dangerous, especially if they are in a position to influence society and public policy. Only a few Christians who are in a position of intellectual power have the courage to speak out. One such person is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia. In his 1996 address to the graduates of Mississippi College of Law, he said, “Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society, but fools for Christ’s sake. We must pray to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world. Intellectuals throughout history have rejected miracles and the Easter story because they do not believe in miracles. But, it is irrational to reject miracles. One can be sophisticated and believe in God. Reason and intellect are not to be laid aside where matters of religion are concerned.”

Naturalism

Since the so-called Enlightenment (which I prefer to call the “Endarkenment”) science has abandoned its search for truth “wherever it may lead.” It has cut its ties from its philosophical progenitor. It has boxed itself into a position of investigating nature only as perceived by the five senses. One of the most stultifying aspects of the assumption that “nature is all there is” is that science acts as if no philosophical discipline can inform it. This dogmatism is self-refuting, as has been noted, since naturalism itself is based on philosophy, not science. One cannot conclude scientifically that science works. One must make philosophical presuppositions that the universe exists (e.g., it is not an illusion). That it exhibits order and that it can be known. That it is mind-independent, i.e., there is a real distinction between the observer and the observed. And, that mathematics (numbers and formulas written on paper) can represent and correspond to reality. Science does not (nor can not) provide this grounding for itself because those presuppositions are philosophical in nature, and there are competing views[v] which cannot be ignored. Without a philosophical basis, science would deny its own rationality because it cannot scientifically prove itself. One can only assume that it works.

The real creation/evolution debate is not about science. It’s about which worldview will prevail – “Nature is all there is,” or “In the beginning God created.” Evolutionary science has defined all competing philosophical views “off limits” and “out of bounds” in order to make its own methodology stand uncontested. If the irrational protective mechanisms of evolution were exposed in terms the public understood, the demise of naturalistic evolution would become imminent. Evolution relies on the philosophy of naturalism for its veracity, not on scientific evidence. Naturalism has established itself as the overarching (if not only) methodology for discovering truth about our universe and has established a potent line of defense against anything that would challenge its conclusions or its presuppositions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with philosophical propositions being investigated by the scientific methodology -- and accepted or rejected based on the evidence adduced. Philosophy can (and does) inform science. It is biased dogmatism that insists otherwise and arbitrarily picks and chooses which presuppositions it will allow.

Even though the vast majority of Americans are theists (i.e., they believe in God), the most influential intellectual people in America and around the world are naturalistic agnostics or atheists. The naturalist assumes that God exists only in the minds of religious believers. In our greatest universities, naturalism is the virtually unquestioned assumption that underlies science and all intellectual work. If naturalism is true, then humankind created God, not the other way around. This view has drawn an impenetrable line of demarcation between faith and reason. In this view, theism produces only opinion, which in turn produces “belief,” but science produces fact through “reason.” Religion therefore is a myth, and science is reality; so the view goes.

Most theists in science uncritically accept the naturalistic rules established by the atheists. Even some evangelical universities embrace the naturalistic methodology. Professor Nancy Murphy at Fuller Seminary says, “Christians and atheists alike must pursue scientific questions in our era without invoking a Creator. Anyone who crosses the line has stepped into the arena of theology.” Ms. Murphy, therefore, is saying that if we want to teach science in the church we should do so as if “nature is all there is.” Unfortunately for many churchgoers her statement stands uncontested. To them, Christianity is a matter of blind faith only. It is not a reasoned faith. The realm of reason is somehow considered, “for non-theists only” and intellectual discussions of science are left outside the church doors. This is an unacceptable position for the Church in a secular age dominated by information and technology.

Theistic Science
There is no incompatibility between faith and reason in the Scripture.[vi] True, we are to love God with our heart and soul (by faith), but we are also to love Him with our mind and strength (by rational process). Christianity is a reasonable and reasoned faith. It is not blind. It captures the mind as well as the heart. The heart cannot embrace what the mind rejects. Along with Phillip Johnson I advocate a return to theistic science, i.e., where nature is real and God is real. The Bible and science can be studied side-by-side as “dual textbooks of reality.” And, they can inform one another. I will argue that this has been the historical model. Today’s arbitrary separation of science and religion, faith and reason is a perversion of the historical model as well as a perversion of Scripture.

With the modern liberalization of Christianity, many who call themselves Christians have withdrawn from a strong position on the inspiration of Scripture and in doing so think they have found a safe harbor from attacks by science. By and large the Christian church has retreated for the last 100 years from the debate, thinking it has found ways of insulating itself from scientific criticism. I think they have not found safe harbor, but rather have wreaked havoc upon the faith. The church has become a loser not a winner. I believe one can be a biblical inerrantist and a modern scientist without having to suffer from schizophrenia. I think the average Christian has no need to be intimidated by modern science, and in fact can use the findings of science to help bring intellectually-minded people to Jesus Christ.

What does the Bible say about naturalism?

Psalm 19:1-4 -- The heavens declare the glory of God ... they pour forth speech ... they display knowledge ... their words go to the ends of the earth.

Romans 1:20 -- Since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes, His eternal power and Divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.

Hebrews 11:3 -- By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Nature is God’s creation and it is God’s universal way of revealing Himself to His creatures. In theology this is called God’s General Revelation.[vii] The study of nature is as much an inerrant communication from God as the 66 books of the Bible. It is sort of a “67th book.” Since God cannot lie, the communication by God through nature and the Bible must agree. The Scriptures call us to, “test all things; hold fast to that which is true” (I Thessalonians 5:21). It supports the scientific method of inquiry to, “investigate everything carefully ... so that we may know truth” (Luke 1:3, 4). Other “holy books” do not encourage this line of inquiry, at least in a scientific sense.

What does the Bible say about reason versus faith?

The Scripture challenges us to defend our faith in the marketplace of ideas. Not just by witnessing and preaching, but by intellectually engaging in public debate with reason and persuasion.

I Peter 3:15 -- “always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and respect.” The Greek word for “defense” is “apologia” from which we derive the name for the study of the intellectual defense of the faith -- apologetics.

Acts 17:17, 18 -- Paul is in Athens, the intellectual capital of world at that time. Notice how he was evangelizing: “He was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews ... and in the marketplace everyday with those who happened to be present.” Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him saying, “What does this idle babbler wish to say?” Paul goes to the intellectual center of the city, the Aeropagus (Mars Hill) and stands in the midst of the philosophers and proclaims to them the God of all creation. He quotes their poets and engages them intellectually. Then he preaches the gospel to them (v22-34). Some believed and were saved.

Jude 3 -- “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

Apologetics is a lost art in the church. Many of the early Church fathers became apologists (defenders of the faith) because their Christian beliefs were under attack constantly. In today’s post-Christian era, as we continue this breathtaking fall away from a biblical worldview, Christians must return to their biblical mandate to contend for the faith. The modern Christian has retreated from the work of the apologist. It is more important than ever before to be able to “give an answer for the hope that it within us.” We must remember, however, to do so with “gentleness and respect,” showing grace and love to those who disagree.

The historic relationship between Christianity and science

Many people think there was always a strained, if not hostile, relationship between Christianity and science. We have been taught that the church’s opposition to the science of Galileo, for example, blocked the development of astronomy. The implication is that science is superior to religion and the only thing Christianity has done for science is get in its way. Whatever the church’s opposition was at the time to heliocentricity (i.e., the sun being the center of the solar system), it was based on historical considerations and faulty interpretations of the Bible, not on direct teachings from it. The idea of an “immovable earth” with the sky as a moving domed roof goes back to Babylonian times. Aristotle embraced this idea adding that the Earth was at the center, with everything else moving around it. In the 2nd century AD, Ptolemy drew up a model for the orbits of the five known plants, and the sun, moon and stars around the earth. Ptolemy’s model of the universe turned out to be as acceptable to the Christian Church as it had been to most everyone in the ancient world. It is not surprising therefore that Ptolemy’s model went unchallenged until the 16th century. Society as a whole is slow to accept any new scientific paradigms, not just the church.

If Christian belief had been such a barrier to science it is difficult to understand why so many founders of modern science were devout believers, e.g., Copernicus, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Kepler, Cuvier, Linnaeus, Mendel, Faraday and many others. Most scientists before the Enlightenment studied science in an effort to know their Creator. Their science was done to the glory of God. They filled their notebooks with prayers, praise, and theological musings. They studied the creation in an effort to better know their Creator. Their conviction in studying science was to “know God and seek His thoughts after Him.” They integrated science with their Christian faith. Isaac Newton, for example, used both his scientific and Christian beliefs to conduct his work both in science and theology. In 1684 Newton formulated the mass and distance laws of gravity, and in 1687 the three laws of motion. With these mathematical formulations he achieved the first great breakthrough in modern science. His laws were exact and equally applicable to all inanimate matter, from the solar system down to grains of sand. The universe, he said, is not just orderly but also intelligible because it is part of God’s grand design, which he believed he was discovering.

Up until the turn of this century Christianity was the dominant intellectual force in most areas of life in the West. This is seen today as negative. But in fact biblical Christianity provided the philosophical basis for science to arise in the first place. To omit or dismiss the Christian foundation of science and the religious motivation of its founders is to misunderstand the true nature of science. Science is the Christian’s friend, but some Christians have allowed it to become an enemy. Understanding science and how it works is a tremendous apologetic tool for witnessing and defending the faith. Science, which originated out of a Christian worldview, turned on its progenitor after Darwin arrived. Many began to believe that the creation of life could be explained by naturalistic means alone and that God was no longer necessary as its originator.

The development of science in the West[viii]

Historians of science know that it was Christianized Europe that gave birth to modern science even though several cultures of antiquity produced higher levels of learning and technology than medieval Europe. Did you ever ask yourself why modern science has its roots in Western civilization and not in Eastern culture? Consider this comparison of the biblical teaching to that of other worldviews --

Genesis 1:1 -- “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Eastern religions, e.g., Hinduism and Buddhism, are pantheistic.[ix] Fundamentally, they see the world as an illusion (maya) which is to be overcome by self-realization. The Bible, however, portrays nature as real not an illusory state of the mind. Nature is the created realm of definable structures; objects of inquiry that are distinct from the Creator and “available” for people to study.

Genesis 1:4, 10 -- “and God saw that it was good.” Science depends on a society that places a great value on nature, but does not deify it. In the Bible, nature is seen as good because God said that it was good. In Eastern and many other philosophies nature is seen at best as uncontrollable, and at worst evil with only spiritual reality being good. In Eastern systems of thought, one tries to overcome the natural world through meditation. They do not see the natural world as a stage for God’s activities or for scientific investigation.

Genesis 1:16 -- “And God made two great lights (sun and moon); He made the stars also.” God created the heavenly bodies. They are not “gods” as they are thought to be in most primitive religions, nor “one with God” as they are in Eastern pantheistic religion. God is not part of nature. This de-deification of nature was a necessary precondition for science to develop. Nature was seen as available for study. It was not impious to investigate nature, as it would be if nature itself were deity.

Genesis 1:14 -- “Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens …. and let them be for seasons and for days and for years.’” Christians saw the universe as orderly and predictable because God set it up that way. People of non-biblically based religions and philosophies saw nature as unpredictable (at best), and terrifying (at worst). The ancient Chinese, although an advanced civilization, never developed modern science because they had no belief in an intelligible order to nature. Chinese scholars abandoned the idea of a Supreme Being with personal and creative attributes. No rational Author of Nature existed in their universe, consequently the objects of nature they so meticulously described did not follow universal principles. In the absence of a compelling need for the notion of general laws, little or no search was made for them. Christians like Copernicus, on the other hand, sought to study the structure of the universe because they believed it was, “wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.” The laws of nature were seen as manifestations of “thoughts in the mind of God.”

Genesis 2:16 -- “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘from any tree of the garden you may eat freely.’” The Bible teaches that the Creator is also the Lawgiver. This is the basis for the concept of Natural Law. Natural Law was unknown to most in the ancient world. Nature simply did not strike people as something to be lawful or rational. Nature was dangerous, mysterious and intractable. Descartes said that the mathematical laws sought by science were legislated by God in the same manner a king ordains laws in his realm. The conviction that nature was intelligible comes from biblical precepts.

Genesis 1:1 -- God created ex nihilo (out of nothing). He created every molecule precisely the way He wanted it to be, and He exercises absolute control. There is not one renegade molecule in the universe. There is no pre-existing substance that has some kind of nature outside of God’s control. Most other philosophies and religions have to deal with an eternal universe that has an existence and power of its own. The Christian founders of modern science (e.g., Kepler) were led to search for precision and mathematical certainty in nature because the Bible taught that God does not lie. If nature had a “mind of its own” that would make it unpredictable and uncontrollable.

Genesis 1:3, 6, 9 -- “Then God said ….” God created things for His own purposes. He exercises His own free will. We can’t presume to know His will unless we seek it out through His revelation. In practice this means discovering the God who reveals Himself in various ways.[x] His general revelation compels the discoverer to “seek out” the things of nature. The biblical worldview gave birth to one of the most foundational aspects of modern science -- the experimental (empirical) method of observation and test. Galileo said, “We cannot presume to know how God thinks, we must go out and look at the world He created.”

Genesis 1:28 -- God gave human beings “dominion” over the earth, i.e., to cultivate it, care for it, harness its forces for human benefit. The early scientists regarded technology as “exercising dominion,” and as a means by which they could alleviate the destructive effects of the curse imposed by the fall in Genesis 3. That idea was revolutionary. In Eastern thought, man is trapped in a fatalistic cycle of reincarnation. In the West, technological dominion was to be used to ameliorate man’s condition. The founding of hospitals, missions, and helping institutions was primarily the work of Christians who saw it as serving God and “exercising dominion.”

Where are we today?

Unfortunately, the prognostication of Romans 1:21-25 has come true. It predicted that something like evolutionism (naturalism) would become the ultimate perversion of Christianity:

“For even though they knew God they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures .…they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.”

------

[i] The first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, yet it is here. Therefore it had to be created.
[ii] In Christian theology, the term “transcendent” refers to God’s “being,” which is of a higher order (ontology) than that of a “being” in the natural world. The “Supreme” being has attributes that are beyond (transcends) those of the “human” being, e.g., God is self-existent (not dependent, not contingent); God is omnipotent (all-powerful, not limited), omniscient (all-knowing, not ignorant), etc. Therefore, the Supreme Being is able to create and rule the natural world, creating and sustaining the laws by which it operates. God is also “imminent” with His creation, caring for it, loving it and sustaining all that He created.
[iii] This section adapted from Science & Faith: Are They Compatible? by Greg Koukl, Stand to Reason.
[iv] Induction is the logical process by which one observes particulars and draws a general conclusion that theoretically governs all the particulars. One never knows for sure if the generalization holds in all cases because one generally never gets to observe all the particulars.
[v] A number of schools of thought that exist (e.g., pantheism) deny the full reality of an external, mind-independent, material universe.
[vi] Unfortunately various Christian communities have pitted faith and reason to be at odds with one another.
[vii] God’s other ways of revealing Himself are His Word (the Bible), which is His Special Revelation (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). And, the incarnation of Jesus Christ, which is God’s final revelation (Hebrews 1:2).
[viii] Much of the material in this section was adapted from The Soul of Science by Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton.
[ix] The word “pantheism” is derived from the Greek words for “all, everything” (pan) and “god” (theos). In theology pantheism purports that god is everything and in everything, not distinct from it as in biblical theism.
[x] The Bible says that if you seek God, He will find you, i.e., make Himself known to you. This is the subjective witness of the Holy Spirit. The objective ways God reveals Himself are: through nature (general revelation); the Bible (special revelation); and Jesus Christ (the incarnation).