Conflicts between Science and Theology

The relationships between scientists and theologians have been as varied as the relationships between those working within the two disciplines. Both subjects may be lumped together under the general title ‘science’ as traditionally science was any search for truth. The word science is derived from the Latin word ‘sciens’ meaning ‘having knowledge’. Science is a search for truth and as a result there always has been and always will be debate.

If this world is created by God then it is very reasonable to expect that there will be a unity between the truths of all fields of knowledge. Thus a study of the cosmos or biology should reveal something of a creator. Similarly any true intervention of God into his world should be open to ‘scientific’ investigation in the broadest meaning of that word. Since the renaissance began at the end of the 15th century modern science and Christianity have worked hand-in-hand. Most of the problems have arisen from either a misunderstanding of science or a misunderstanding of the Bible.

There are many examples of leading Christians being later shown to be wrong. Thus the Christian Lactanius (260-330 AD), writing about the possibility of a spherical earth, said,

"Is it possible that men can be so absurd as to believe that the crops and the trees on the other side of the earth hang downward, and that men have their feet higher than their heads? If you ask them how they defend these monstrosities, how things do not fall away from the earth on that side, they reply that the nature of things is such that heavy bodies tend toward the centre, like the spokes of a wheel, while light bodies, as clouds, smoke, fire, tend from the centre to the heavens on all sides. Now, I am really at a loss what to say of those who, when they have once gone wrong, steadily persevere in their folly, and defend one absurd opinion by another."

St. Augustine (354 – 430), who did so much to help the church understand Scripture, asserted that no one could live on the other side of the earth. He said,

"Its impossible there should be inhabitants on the opposite side of the earth, since no such race is recorded by Scripture among the descendants of Adam."

Another argument against the sphericity of the earth was that,

"In the day of judgment, men on the other side of a globe could not see the Lord descending through the air."

There have been hot debates about such matters in the past and it is only as more information has come to light over time that the truth has been revealed. Indeed Augustine himself gave the following advice for those facing apparent contradictions between secular and Biblical studies,

“If we cannot reconcile such a contradiction we are to suspend judgement, not doubting either the Holy Scripture or the results of human observation and reasoning, but believing that it is possible, given sufficient knowledge and understanding to reconcile the apparent contradiction.”

It is all too easy to pick out mistakes made by others, but we must never forget that Augustine reminded the world what Scripture shouts, that we are all meant to find a relationship with Jesus Christ, our creator. He summarised its teaching as,

“Our hearts were made for You, O Lord, and they are restless until they rest in you.”

When Galileo (1564 – 1642) started to study the skies using a telescope, he made several new discoveries. He saw four moons rotating around Jupiter. He noted that Venus had phases just like our moon.

These findings supported the Copernican view that planets rotated around the sun and that the earth was not central to the universe astrologically. There was much opposition to these theories from the Vatican authorities. At first this was led by a Father Thomas Caccini. In a sermon delivered in 1614 in Florence, Father Caccini attacked the new views about the centrally of the sun. He argued that as Joshua had commanded the sun to stand still in Joshua 10:12, how could astronomers assert that the sun was motionless at the centre of the solar system? He also used specious arguments to attack Galileo personally. For example he misquoted the words of two angelic figures to Jesus’ disciples after Jesus had ascended into heaven. The original is:

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you will come back in the same way . . .” Acts 1:11

But Caccini suggested that this referred to Galileo and his activities,

“Man of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky.”

Unfortunately Galileo at times descended to the same low levels of misusing the Bible as some of his adversaries. The Douai translation of Proverbs 8:26 reads,

“He had not yet made the earth, the rivers and the hinges of the terrestrial orb.”

Galileo argued that the only use for hinges was if the earth was meant to turn.

Galileo did however make an important distinction between the primary purposes of Scripture and Science. He said,

“The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes.”

In spite of this, the Congregation of the Index of the Roman Church concluded that no-one should teach that the sun was at the centre of the solar system because this,

“Expressly contradicts the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in many passages.”

The Roman Catholic Church only revoked its edict against Copernican views in 1757. In 1831 it removed Galileo’s book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican, from its prohibited list. It should be noted that in this book Galileo did make major mistakes, especially over the cause of the sea’s tides. It was Kepler who later showed that the moon caused tides. Even scientists get things wrong.

Other Bible verses were used to suggest that astronomer’s views were contrary to Scripture and therefore heretical. One of these was Psalm 24:2 which seems to give a limited view of the structure of the earth,

“He founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.”

Kepler, the astronomer who discovered that the planets move in an elliptical orbit around the sun, had no time for such people who tried to create a conflict between science and the Bible. He argued that, as the Bible has to appeal to all types of people, it must use language that is understandable by all. He said,

“If anyone alleges on the basis of Psalm 24, that the earth is floating on the waters, may it not be rightly said to him that he ought to set free the Holy Spirit and should not drag him into the schools of physics to make a fool of him.”

Genesis 1

The beginning of Genesis has been an area of conflict for many years. The Bible seems to say that God made the universe over six days whereas scientific discoveries now suggest that the universe is very old. Some say “If God decreed that he created the universe in six days, who are we to doubt him”. Correctly they argue “Is God not God and able to do anything he wants in any way he wants? Could God not just say the word and it will happen?” Some people go further and in full confidence in their particular understanding of the meaning of the six days say, “To doubt what God says in Genesis 1 about the six days undermines the very authority of Scripture.”

Of course God could have created the world in steps of six 24-hour days. He is God. But is that what God wants us to learn from Genesis 1? Is all the other evidence that we now have available consistent with this particular understanding of Genesis 1 or are we in danger of making the same sort of mistake that earlier churchmen have made in the past?

These stories are clearly placed at the beginning of God’s book to stress that the world and everything in it was created by God, and that man, the pinnacle of God’s creation is subject to God’s authority. Are there any internal clues in the chapter that the writer has put there to show the extent that we should read other ideas into this chapter?

The very structure of the chapter suggests that it is not intended to be a scientific treatise on the exact mechanism or timing by which God created his world. It is clearly written in a poetic form typical of ancient Hebrew writing.

There are three different meanings in Genesis 1 for the Hebrew word ‘yom’ which is translated ‘day’.

1) 12 hours “God called the light ‘day’ and the darkness he called night.” Genesis 1:5

2) 24 hours “There was evening and there was morning – (literally) day one.” Genesis 1:5

3) A Long period Genesis 2:4 literally reads, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth, the day when they were created”.

It is as if the writer is trying to be ambiguous by not defining his words and then using them strictly. He talks about there being a morning and an evening on the first six days which everybody knew, even then, was the result of the changing relationship of the sun to the earth. Yet the writer says, very specifically, that the sun was not created until the 4th day.

The reason is surely that the writer is not concerned to describe mechanisms but is stressing the importance of relationships. The writer wanted to demote the status of the sun, to emphasise that this was a created structure and not to be an object of worship. This was very important as ancient man tended to focus their worship on the sun because this was perceived to be the source of their energy, warmth and food. In Egypt the sun god Ra was highly revered. Even the rulers included this god in their title –PhaRAoh. Yet this was not what God wanted. It was the creator himself that man should worship. It is an anachronism that December 25th was chosen as the day on which we celebrate the birth of the Lord Jesus into this world. Previously it was the festival on which Romans celebrated the birthday of Myras, the Sun God.

Another emphasis in the chapter is the repeated phrase, “God saw that it was good’.
This occurs twice on the third day and on everyday thereafter. On the 6th day, when everything was complete and man was installed, comes the conclusion, “God saw all that he had made and it was very good”. God is clearly concerned for all his creation and for us not to care for it is to go against His desires. Authority over his world has been delegated to us.

The 6 days are subdivided into two groups in a poetic way.

Days 1-3 God makes the substance

1. Light and Darkness v.3

2. Waters and sky v.6

3. Land and sea and vegetation v.9

Days 4-6 God populates these areas

4. Sun, moon and stars v.14

5. Fish and birds v.20

6. Land animals and man v.24

This is not a description of evolutional progression even though it suggests a sequential creation. Note that the fish and birds are formed on day 5 and the land animals on day 6. This is a descriptive device that emphasises that it was God who populated the waters and the sky just as he populated the earth. In the rest of the Bible there is no emphasis on what was created on particular days, the main stress is to be on the seventh day. On the seventh day, which is unique in having no morning or evening mentioned in the text, God rested from his work of creation. The rest of the Bible teaches that we are still in that seventh day. Biologists tell us that a very high percentage of known species have become extinct. There is no evidence of new species having naturally developed since man has been around. Some organisms exist just as they appeared in fossils millions of years old.

The human writers of Scripture must have had a view of nature that was similar to their contemporaries. It is remarkable however that these writings are relevant to people of all nationalities in all subsequent ages. They are timeless. The lack of modern perceptions does not reduce their application at all. This is a very powerful argument for the inspiration of Scripture by God.

Scripture claims to be God’s revelation to man of things about himself that we could never otherwise know. It tells us that there is one God who is both personal and full of kindness and yet is holy and hates all forms of sin. It tells us that to know him and live with and for him is the greatest goal of our lives. Jesus, his apostles and the Old Testament prophets all confirm that it is only through Scripture that we know anything for certain about the nature of the infinite God. Without revelation there can be no certainty about the supernatural.

In 1963 a book called ‘Honest to God’ was published, written by an Anglican suffragan bishop, John Robinson. It questioned the Biblical teachings about God. An article in a national newspaper, heralding this book, was headed,

“Our image of God must go.”

Yet Christianity claims to be a revealed religion; our understanding coming directly from God. God has authenticated the Bible’s teaching through the testimony of Jesus, God’s son. If Jesus is the incarnation of God then to revise his revealed description of God and god’s teaching for us, is stupidity itself. There was also supernatural miraculous evidence to give authority to the teaching of his prophets and apostles. Further evidence that validates what they taught was that prophecies they claimed were from God were fulfilled. Finally there is that subjective ‘ring of truth’ about the Scriptures. We instinctively do know that we should be the sort of people that God asks us to be. If we have no revelation from God then we have nothing on which we can depend at all.

Poor science and poor Biblical theology can both be the cause of conflicts. As Einstein once remarked,

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

BVP

Sept 04

You may like to read “Science and God: Enemies or Allies?” that can be found under publications on this website.