interpretations of Scripture & Nature
in our Theology & Science
 

Sections in this page are:
Inherent Conflict between Science and Religion? 
What are relationships between science and religion? 
How should we use information from The Two Books? 
Can historical science produce reliable results? 
Apologetics and Natural Theology 

 
      When we ask important questions about creation (who, what, when, how, why) we can use information from two sources:  the Word of God (in scripture) and the Works of God (in nature).   Building a solid foundation for thinking about scripture and nature, in theology and science, begins with principles for wisely using knowledge.

      Is there inherent conflict between science and religion?
      What is the best way to learn from the two books of God, and find harmony in what we learn?  Or is harmony impossible because there is inherent conflict between the information in scripture and nature?  If theology (based mainly on studies of scripture) and science (based mainly on studies of nature) are incompatible, then we cannot combine their knowledge in a harmonious way, so conflict between theology & science (and "warfare" between advocates of theology & science?) is inevitable.
      In the late 1800s, books by John Draper and Andrew White painted a colorful historical picture of history as a conflict between the rationality of science (earnestly searching for truth) opposed by the ignorance of religion (stubbornly trying to block scientific progress), with science fighting valiantly and continually emerging victorious.  Their interpretation of history is dramatic, with heroes and villains clearly defined, and it has exerted a powerful influence on popular views about interactions between science and religion.  But their historical portrayal of "warfare" is distorted and oversimplistic.  It does not accurately describe what really happened, and is rejected by modern historians.

• Science and Religion: Conflict or Compatibility? by Craig Rusbult, looks at two legends of "warfare" — a flat earth and Galileo — and how, according to historian David Lindberg, in encounters between Galileo and the church "personal interest and political ambition were as important as ideological stance... [and] conflict was located as much within the church (between opposing theologies of biblical interpretation) and within science (between alternative cosmologies) as between science and the church."  And instead of defining the conflict as religion versus science, Stillman Drake thinks it's more accurate to view it in terms of the inherent mutual hostility between authority and independent thought.  (6 k, plus a 4k appendix about science and natural process, miracles, and scientism)
• Christianity and Science in Conflict? by Loren Haarsma, examines conflict (actual plus imaginary) and outlines principles for using knowledge from scripture & nature in theology & science.  (14 k)
• links to 8 pages about Galileo & the Church, and The Myth of Flat-Earth Beliefs
• Margaret Wertheim, the myth of "warfare" between science and religion and a series about the history of science-religion relations and the Counterbalance Foundation shares an interview with Ronald Numbers (14 k) and you can read about Famous Conflicts Between Science and Religion.

• I.O.U. — We'll look for more pages, about the ideas of Lindberg, Numbers, Brooke, and others.
• comments — The ideas and their interactions are complex, and definitions are difficult (what is science? what is religion? and how does it differ from theology?), and how do other terms (worldviews, philosophy, metaphysics,...) fit into the discussion?  Is there a "theology" for nontheistic worldviews like atheism or pantheism?  A major challenge will be trying to "cover the area" without overwhelming you with "too much."

 
      Mutually Interactive Relationships between Science and Religion
      If the relationship isn't conflict, what is it?  "The encounter between Christianity and science... is a complex and diverse interaction that defies reduction to simple ‘conflict’ or ‘harmony’ ... and the interaction varied with time, place, and person." (David Lindberg & Ronald Numbers, page 10 of God and Nature, 1986)

• Science and Religion by Douglas Hayhoe, describes Ian Barbour's four models — conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration — for relationships between science and religion  (10 k + 1k)
• A book review by Allan Harvey (9 k) of Putting it All Together: Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the Christian Faith by Richard Bube 
• I.O.U. — Later, we'll search for basic intro-pages that summarize models of science-religion relationships, based on the views of Ian Barbour, Richard Bube (by himself and by others),...  Many good papers have been in PSCF and elsewhere;  for example, Loren & Debbie Haarsma have good presentations (powerpoint summaries) about science and Christian worldviews, and other parts of the website have science-and-religion resources.

 
      Wisely Using Information from the Two Books
      Is scientific thinking consistent with a Bible-based Christian worldview?  How should we use the two sources of information (in the Word and the Works) graciously provided for us by God?
• Deborah Haarsma shares insightful ideas about these important questions in a brief overview of Christians in Science, available in HTML and PPT.  (4 k of text, in 11 powerpoint-slides)
• Galileo, in 1615, wrote a Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina: Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science (excerpts)
• In 1991, Richard Bube (former editor of ASA's journal) explains how theology and science should (and should not) interact, and why we should aim for authentic science and authentic theology, without changing either from what it should be, in The Future of the ASA: Challenges and Pitfalls.  (34 k, PSCF)
• In 2007, Randy Isaac (current executive director of ASA) looks at the "roots of harmony" between science and Christianity, and the role of ASA in faith-science dialogs to improve understanding and respect, in The Pursuit of Science in a Christian Context.  (19 k)
• Ted Davis looks at "The Word and the Works" in the history of Concordism and American Evangelicals (abstract 2k)
• Craig Rusbult examines realities (scripture & nature) and their interpretations (in theology & science) and why we cannot compare the Bible with science in Using the Two Books. (14 k for Sections 2B & 2C, total is 34 k + 4k)
• John Polkinghorne describes Cross-Traffic Between Science and Theology  (29 k + 1k, PSCF)

      What do young-earth creationists think about the reliability of the two books?
• Ken Ham explains why Biblical Authority (not a Young Earth) is the Issue;  but Craig Rusbult asks, Why does Ken Ham think the earth rotates and orbits?  (8 k for this section)
• Chris and Lucy are wondering whether they should believe what Manuel wrote in his note, or use scientific evidence and logic, in The Parable of the Candle by Garth Wiebe (3 k) which is about The Two Books and — because perhaps we cannot believe what we see? — a FALSE APPEARANCE OF OLD AGE.
• John Morris explains — by asking "Does nature reveal truth as clearly as does the Bible?" — why he thinks there is only one reliable source of information about the history of nature.  (3 k)

      This question by Morris illustrates young-earth claims, which are examined in the following section, challenging the reliability of old-earth interpretations of nature in historical sciences.  But proponents of an old earth challenge the reliability of young-earth interpretations of scripture.  In each case, one group claims "we have overwhelming support for our interpretation (of either nature or scripture) so we KNOW how old the earth is," but the other group says "we don't think your confidence is justified."
      Proponents of a young earth claim that their interpretations of scripture are infallible.  Is this claim justifiable and correct?  If not, then we should question the wisdom of LINKING THE GOSPEL WITH A YOUNG EARTH — this "Linking the Gospel" section is followed by "Death before Sin" because young-earth creationists claim that death before sin (which would occur if the earth is billions of years old) would not be consistent with the Bible and with the character of God.  Based mainly on their interpretation of Genesis 1 and their belief that animal death could not occur before human sin, the young-earth conclusion is that conventional old-earth historical science is theologically unacceptable and it must be wrong, so we must ask another question:

 
      Historical Science — Can it produce reliable conclusions?
      Even though we cannot directly observe ancient history, can we — by a logical analysis of historical evidence (in fields like astronomy, geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, and archaeology) — reach reliable conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other parts of the universe?
      Most young-earth creationists say NO.  They challenge the credibility of all historical sciences that claim to provide evidence for an old earth and universe.  They ask "Were you there? Did you see it?", and imply that "NO" means "then you can't know much about it."    HISTORICAL SCIENCE — IS IT RELIABLE?
 

 
      APOLOGETICS
      apologetics (defending the rationality of Christianity) is introduced in CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & POSTMODERN RELATIVISM which distinguishes between proof (no, we cannot be certain, so every person must "live by faith in their worldview") and evidence (yes, this is available) and includes these pages:  Can we prove the existence and activities of God? (by Craig Rusbult, 9 k + 2k) and Why isn't the evidence clearer? (John Bloom, 16 k), Cross-Based Apologetics (George Murphy, 14 k, PSCF), and The Apologetic Argument (David Snoke, 50 k + 17k, PSCF).
      The Cosmos According to Carl Sagan: Review and Critique by Mark McKim, answers many questions about Sagan's worldview (which he claimed was supported by science) and his criticisms of Christianity (28 k, PSCF)
      Isn't science more rational than faith? asks Alistair McGrath (5 k);  and in more depth (with 56 k for the lecture plus another file for discussion) Has Science eliminated God? Richard Dawkins and The Meaning of Life (in HTML, PDF, mp3) plus a McGrath-Dawkins Debate.

Eventually, the two sections here (above and below) will be more fully developed.  Currently, INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCIENCE includes a few additional pages about Apologetics & Natural Theology.

      NATURAL THEOLOGY
      natural theology is "theology deriving its knowledge of God from the study of nature independent of special revelation." (Webster's Dictionary)"  In science, which is based primarily on our study of nature, the main goal is to understand physical realities.  In theology, based primarily on studying scripture, the main goal is understanding spiritual realities.  But the main goals aren't the only goals, and our theories about spiritual and physical realities are interactive:  theology affects science and our views of physical reality, while science affects theology and our views of spiritual reality.
      Our science can influence our theology, thus moving it in the direction of natural theology, when we ask, "Does God exist? What does God do? What is God like?" and we use our understanding of nature to construct our understanding of God.   In another set of questions we ask, "How should science influence our theology?"
      These important questions — about what the interactions between science and theology are, or what they can be and should be — won't be "answered" in this website.  But later (what you now see here is just a beginning) we'll find web-resources that discuss these questions.  As a start, some useful ideas are in Reading God's Two Books by George Murphy, who explains why it's better to use scriptural theology (based on the Bible) instead of natural theology (based on what we see in nature) as a foundation for building our understanding of God:
      "We should begin with the knowledge of God revealed in the history of Israel which culminates in Christ.  Then we know that the creator, the author of the book of nature, is to be identified with the crucified and risen Christ, and we can read the book of God's works in that light.  Metaphors of God as philosopher, ruler, moral teacher, or designer then have to be adapted to this revelation. ... [We should] see natural theology as dependent upon revelation for its validity.  In other words, natural theology must be a part of distinctively Christian theology. ...  We can learn about nature simply by reading the book of nature.  But that book will tell us something about its author only if we have first read the Bible and understood its witness to Jesus Christ."
 

this page, written by Craig Rusbult (editor of ASA's website for Whole-Person Education),
is http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm
and was revised May 5, 2008

all links were checked-and-fixed on July 3, 2006