The sections in this page are:
Introduction (about Searching, ASA, and Faith)
Is there inherent Conflict between Science and Religion?
What are the relationships between science and religion?
How should we use information from The Two Books?
Can historical science produce reliable results?
A Question of Competence and Character?
Natural Theology (and Apologetics)
Searching for
Truth in the Two
Books of God
Because we want to
find truth, an important question is, "to be most effective in our search for
truth, what is the best way to use the two sources of information (in scripture
and nature) that
God has provided for us?"
Science and Theology in ASA
The American Scientific Affiliation is a fellowship
of scientists who are Christians, and one of our main shared
interests is the relationship between our views of nature (as studied in science)
and our views of God, scripture, humans, and life (studied in theology).
Understanding and Faith
A study of theology-and-science can be useful in
two closely related ways, when we ask:
1) "What are the relationships (historical,
sociological, psychological, philosophical, theological) between science and
Bible-based Christian religion?", and our goal is improved understanding.
2) "What are the mutual interactions between
a person's faith and their views of science/religion relationships?", and
our goal is improved faith and quality of living.
What is the connection between understanding, faith,
and quality of living? Christians must live by faith, by trusting God's
character and promises. If our Christian faith is affected by anything,
including our views of science-and-Christianity, it will affect the way we live. If
we think there is conflict between the claims of science and the Bible-based
principles of Christianity, this perceived conflict — regarding creation
questions, divine action in providence and miracles, or in other ways — can
be a challenge to the quality of personal faith and Christian living. But
if we increase our understanding and decrease our perception of conflict,
we can improve our faith and the quality of our Christian living.
These two questions are
examined in Religion-and-Science
for Understanding & Faith.
Is there inherent conflict between
science and religion?
Is scientific thinking consistent with
a Bible-based Christian worldview? When we carefully study the two
books
of
God, can we 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
in Conflict? by
Craig Rusbult, looks at two legends of the alleged "warfare" — a
flat earth and Galileo: an erroneous modern belief (that in the time
of Columbus, educated Christians believed in a flat earth) was invented
by a creative novelist,
and "the
conflict [involving Galileo] 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. (historian David Lindberg)" And
instead of defining this 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, re: the
myth of "warfare" between science and
religion; a series about the
history of science-religion relations; 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
God has given us two
sources of information, in the Word
of God (scripture) and the Works of God (nature). In our search
for truth, how can we more effectively combine
what we learn from our studies of scripture and nature? Of course, for
the most important things in life — for learning about God and how He
wants us to live and love — the Bible is more important. But we
don't have to make an either-or choice, and for many questions — including
important questions about creation (who, what, when,
how, why) — our understanding of total reality (spiritual plus physical)
will be more complete and accurate if we use both sources of information.
• Deborah Haarsma shares insightful ideas about wisely using all available
information 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 the possibility that (if God created with a FALSE
APPEARANCE OF OLD AGE) we cannot believe
what we see.
• 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)
These questions (by Ham, Wiebe, and Morris) illustrate
young-earth challenges to
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 the Bible is infallible, and also that their interpretation of
the
Bible
is
infallible. Is
the second claim justifiable and
correct? If not, then we should question the wisdom of LINKING
THE GOSPEL WITH A YOUNG EARTH. The section about "Linking
the Gospel" is followed by "Genesis 1" and "Death
before Sin" because
a claim that "the Gospel of Jesus should be linked, in a package deal, with
a Young Earth" is based on mainly on the twin claims that Genesis
1 teaches (with certainty) that the earth is young, and 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 so it must be wrong, which
leads us to
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?
Another important question is, "Why do most scientists conclude that the earth is old?"
Is it a question of Competence and
Character?
Most scientists think
there is overwhelming scientific evidence, from a wide variety of fields,
proving (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the earth and
universe are very old.
A few scientists
who maintain young-earth views (based on their interpretation
of scripture) humbly acknowledge the weakness of current young-earth
science
but
hope it will improve in the future.
But most of the prominent
advocates for a young earth are less humble. They claim that conventional
science is reaching old-earth conclusions due to the anti-Biblical bias of
scientists,
not because
of scientific evidence
and logic. Unfortunately, they often imply (or declare) that Christians
with old-earth views have surrendered to anti-Christian pressures. In
doing this, they oversimplify the actual situation:
Most of the Christian
scientists who carefully examine the science and theology of age-questions
conclude
that scientific evidence-and-logic strongly supports an old earth, and the
Bible does not support a young earth. But some Christian scientists,
after examining the Bible and the scientific evidence, conclude that the
earth is young. In this case, two commonly used evaluation criteria — the
competence and character of those claiming to be authorities — must
be used very carefully when we're trying to distinguish between the opposing
views (old earth and young earth) because proponents
of both
views include
intelligent
scholars
with expertise (theological and/or scientific) who are devout Christians
with high moral character, who sincerely want to find the truth.
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 use our understanding of nature
to
construct our understanding of God. Therefore it's important to ask, "How should science
influence our theology?"
These questions — about what the interactions
between science and can be and should
be, or what they actually are — won't be "answered" in
this
website. But
later (what you now see here is just a beginning) we'll find web-resources that
examine
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 is one aspect of a general principle that applies to
both nature and scripture: When
we're "reading" the
two
books and learning from them, we
should
not try to use either
book to "teach us" what it isn't intended to teach, since
this can
lead to wrong ideas.
natural theology (deriving
knowledge of God from a study of nature) and apologetics (defending
the rationality of Christianity) are examined in the context of a topic that
is currently controversial, when we look at INTELLIGENT
DESIGN IN SCIENCE.
• INFORMATION for readers is in a brief page about our Goal (a quick education for you), Quality (because we've made choices) and Variety (you'll see multiple positions, hence the disclaimer below), Exploring with Freedom (you can use sections and page-links in any order), Size (what does "20 k + 5k" mean?), and Links (that open in a new window).
A DISCLAIMER: |
THREE TYPES
OF LINKS in this website for Whole-Person Education:
An ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it. Above, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-adding, opening a new page in a new window. Below, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-replacing, opening a new page in this window. |
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
June 28, 2008
all links were checked-and-fixed on July 3, 2006
other links-pages about Origins Questions are at the top
of this page,
or you can Search the Website
