THE STUDY OF SCIENCE THROUGH BIBLICAL EYES

Michael K. Farrar, O.D.

© God’s Breath Publications

 

Mankind has always been inquisitive and much of the early discoveries were motivated by a combination of striving for survival in a hostile environment and using the intelligence that God gave mankind to assure growth of the human family and their culture.

 

The early modern period of the development of the study of science stretches roughly from the 15th through the mid-18th centuries. This period includes the scientific revolution and the birth of modern philosophy and also significant transformations in mathematics, mechanics, optics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, and medicine. While science is generally thought to have begun with Aristotle and Hippocrates, it is Galileo Galilei who is considered modern science’s father and Sir Isaac Newton who completely revolutionized the methodology.

 

Modern science with its dramatic achievements and discovers began in the late 1400’s until present day. Most very early highly productive scientists were Christians and had a strong belief in God. Names of very intelligent inquisitive scientists who dedicated their lives to science include; Boyle, Kepler, Newton, Pascal, Faraday, and Pasteur to name only a few.

 

Francis Schaeffer an American evangelical theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor stated the following regarding the development of modern science;

 

“What we have to realize is that early modern science  was started by those who lived in the consensus and setting of Christianity. a man like J. Robert Oppenheimer, for example, who was not a Christian, nevertheless understood this. he has said that Christianity was needed to give birth to modern science. Christianity was necessary for the beginning of modern science for the simple reason that Christianity created a climate of thought which put men in a position to investigate the form of the universe…The early scientists also shared the outlook of Christianity in believing that there is a reasonable God, who has created a reasonable universe, and thus man, by use of his reason, could find out the universe’s form.” (Escape From Reason, by Francis Schaeffer.)

 

There is a revelation and witness that is apparent in creation which testifies of God.

 

Romans 1:18-21

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

 

Another point which I would like to make is that there is believed to be a very strong correlation between the Protestant reformation and the scientific revolution.

 

If there had not been a belief in a “Creator” there would be no reason for the universe to be ordered or for it to behave rationally. A universe by chance would discourage scientific endeavors. When the design, order and purpose in creation was observed and seen to exist, mankind believed there were laws for the natural world and for man. These moral laws for men and women established the ethics for scientists as they endeavored to discover truth through the study of the natural world.

 

But a question can be asked; “When did the shift occur from a Christian basis in science to one of “naturalism?” The change came about as a result of a shift in philosophy used by scientists, a shift towards anti-supernaturalism. A naturalistic evolutionary world view was accepted for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones.

 

Charles Darwin himself experienced such a religious decline in his own life. Robert Clark and James Bales in their book, “Why Scientists Accept Evolution” state, ‘There are some who think that Darwin accepted the theory of evolution only after many, many years of studying the subject. This, however, is not the case. as his religious faith ebbed, his faith in evolution developed. It came in, to fill up the void that was being left by his rejection of creation.”

 

It is also been stated that some leading theologians of the day were also more willing to accept this new evolutionary viewpoint than scientists at the time. It wasn’t that evolution was such an attractive theory, one that provided a better interpretation of scientific fact. Rather, it was all that was left to fill the void created by the rejection of the alternative of “special creation” by the God of the Bible.

 

For many years now we are still in an age of science where agnostics, atheists and theistic evolutionists abound, but there are rumblings in laboratories, as more and more scientists adopt a world view more in line with “special creation and super-naturalism.”

 

Possibly it would be wise to share some definitions of words and terms at this point.

 

Science: The knowledge of facts, phenomena, laws and causes, gained and verified by exact observation, organized, repeatable experimentation and thinking.

 

Scientific Method: This method is divided into two types; Empirical Observational Science and Historical Postulational Science. Let me define what these terms mean.

 

Empirical Observational Science: This approach in science deals with currently observable and reproducible experiments or events which can be reproduced in any lab or observed in the field by any scientist.

 

Historical Postulational Science: This approach of science deals with looking at historically unique events and attempting to determine their cause based on current scientific laws and theories.

 

As you can see by the graphics below, both “Empirical Observational Science” and “Historical Positional Science” have the same approaches to scientific study.

 

First, Observations which can be influenced by a scientist’s “beliefs and values.”

 

Secondly, a Hypothesis which can be influenced by certain “assumptions” they may have personally.

 

Thirdly, a Theory which is developed by “presuppositions” which are assumptions about the world or a belief related to what is being studied which is assumed valid but may not have been proven true.

 

Fourthly what might be called a scientific postulation or a conclusion which is based on the first three.

 

 

Next we come to how Scientific Laws are developed. Scientific Laws are created through a process of “human” reasoning and logic which are developed in a precise order. First, the scientist begins with certain beliefs and values. Assumptions and presuppositions are made as observations are made. Facts and truths are encountered with a mind set of the scientist’s beliefs and assumptions. Conclusions are made about the facts which are observed based on the scientist’s beliefs, assumptions and presuppositions which were held by the scientist in the first place.

 

Such a process can be observed in the Bible for example when Jesus’ deity and authority is called into question.

 

John 7:11-13, “So the Jews were seeking Him at the feast and were saying, “Where is He?” There was much grumbling among the crowds concerning Him; some were saying, “He is a good man”; others were saying, “No, on the contrary, He leads the people astray.” Yet no one was speaking openly of Him for fear of the Jews.”

 

In this passage in John’s gospel there were two groups of people who had two different ideas about what type of man Jesus was. Each group had observed His actions and words. Each group had developed a hypothesis about who He was. Each group had a theory as to what His mission in life was. And finally each group had made different conclusions about how to respond to Him.

 

Another example of conflicting decisions on who Jesus was reflects disparity in opinions based on the same observations. In Matthew 12:22-29 it states, “Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”

 

We see here that based on the same observations we have two groups of people who came up with different conclusions as to the facts. Jesus exorcises a demon from a man and heals him. The crowds are wondering if Jesus is possibly the Son of David because of how he miraculously healed the man of the demon. The Pharisees whose religious authority is threatened claim Jesus exorcised the demon out of the man by the power of Satan.

 

It is difficult for any scientist, be they Christian or non-Christian, to filter out bias and preconceived ideas depending on how honest they wish to be with what they observe in the study of the sciences. What we learn from these examples as Disciples of Christ who believe in a God-created Universe are that we can agree to disagree on interpretations of the facts of science, but we do not have to bow to scientific interpretations as the only theory or interpretation.

 

If we look at two more scripture passages we find the Truth of Scripture contradicting the interpretation of Science as to the creation of the universe and our world.

 

Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

 

Colossians 1:16-17, “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

 

These scriptures contradict the scientific theory of the origin of the universe which is as follows;

 

“Our universe began with an explosion of space itself – the Big Bang. Starting from extremely high density and temperature, space expanded, the universe cooled, and the simplest elements formed. Gravity gradually drew matter together to form the first stars and the first galaxies.”

 

Because of the thought processes of scientists who deny the existence of God and wish to leave us no  option for an “ex nihilo” or “out of nothing” creation by the power of God creative act we can see that often scientific study and experimentation can many times be described as “scientism.”

 

You might ask, “What is scientism?” Scientism is the thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists which can lead to excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. Scientism claims that science is the only objective means by which we can know anything. Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which to determine what is true or is an unwarranted application of science in situations that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. Science does tell us a lot about nature. It allows us to develop new technologies, solve technical problems and make informed decisions. But believing it’s the only source of knowledge is incorrect.

 

Romans 1:20-25, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 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. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

 

Godel’s Theorem sets things in perspective though. You might ask who was Kurt Friedrich Gödel? He was a German logician, mathematician, and philosopher. Considered along with Aristotle and Gottlob Frege to be one of the most significant logicians in history, Gödel had an immense effect upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th century Godel’s Theorem sets things in perspective though.

 

Basically his Theorem has the following points.

 

1. No closed system can be proved to be free of contradictions without stepping outside the system.

 

2. Subjectivism must be eliminated for truth to be evidenced.

 

As a side note, Kurt Gödel constructed the first mathematical models of the universe in which travel into the past is, in theory at least, possible. Within the framework of Einstein’s general theory of relativity Gödel produced cosmological solutions to Einstein’s field equations which contain closed time-like curves, that is, curves in spacetime which, despite being closed, still represent possible paths of bodies. An object moving along such a path would travel back into its own past, to the very moment at which it “began” the  journey.

 

We must also remember the passage in Hebrews 11:1-4, which states, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. 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.”

 

If a scientist is honest, faith is practiced by them whether they are Christian or not. The only question is what is the object of their faith, God OR their current belief in scientific laws (which by the way have been modified or discarded at times as truth and verification prove such laws are true or not.

 

Robert Jastrow in his article; God’s Creation, Science Digest, states, “Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept this view, but their choices are limited. Either life was created on the earth by the will of a “being” outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving mater lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a supreme being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief.”

 

Many scientists like to imagine that they have created their theories solely by objective analysis of data, their minds passive as a monk in a cell sifting the information that arrives through their senses. They imply that it is by methodical experimentation and postulation that they determine life originated by “spontaneous generation” through the interactions of chemicals and elements in an ancient pool of sea water. Physiologists and psychologists would disagree. They tell us that the brain theorizes almost as quickly as it perceives. An example of a quick response such as this is encountering a snake while hiking. The rattle and observation of the snake causes a quick response without any prolonged thinking process. In essence what often takes place is many scientists have already chosen to not believe in a “supreme being” who created out of His “supreme power and creative wisdom.” Therefore with the supernatural tossed aside, they seek some theory, some type of postulation to remove God from the creative process on earth as well as in the universe. Below are graphics which illustrate these belief processes.

 

What are some abuses of Scientism in the Scientific Method of  Experimentation to obtain Knowledge and Truth?

 

First we have “Dogmatism.” This entails absolute statements by scientists which have no absolute facts or proof behind them. An example would be the statement; “Evolution is how life arose and developed.”

 

No true validated proof is given, just a statement.

 

Secondly we have “Extrapolation.” This is the extension of theories of science into areas where it does not belong. An example would be the statement; “Micro-evolution is proof that man is evolving socially into a better creature.” Micro-evolution is an observable fact and can be demonstrated in the laboratory. It can be observed that evolutionary change can take place within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period. An example would be the “Peppered Moth of North America and England. The Peppered Moth had various appearances, the majority used to be white and a few were what you might call peppered with various dark spots and coloration. During the industrial revolution in the United States and England there was so much soot and pollution the tress and bushes because covered in black soot. This caused a shift in the population of the Peppered Moth. The white moths which were in the majority were easier to see by predators than the darker moths therefore the population of moths became dominated by the dark moths. This is micro-evolution, not proof of macro-evolution.

 

Thirdly we have “Exaggeration.” A theory is given a higher degree of verification than justified by data information. An example would be the statement; “Evolution is FACT!” It is obvious in this instance that to claim something is valid and true because you state it is does not prove it is true. Unless you can PROVE with verified, repetitive, validated evidence that something is true, you can’t say it is true. This is similar to our Christian Faith. Can we prove through scientific verification that our faith in God is true. No, because that is what our faith in God is all about. If there was undeniable absolute proof that all the Bible says is absolutely true our faith would be watered down, we would HAVE TO BELIEVE because otherwise we would be in denial of the obvious factual reality. Take the example of “gravity.” If you denied the existence of gravity how would you explain why you would fall if you stepped off the ledge along the Grand Canyon. Hebrews 11:1 defines what Christian faith is all about. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Do you see the two important words in this verse? Our faith is an “assurance” of what we “hope” for. Our faith is a “conviction” of things we do not see. Those who believe in evolution have a similar faith as well, not absolute proof, but faith in the theory of evolution. Evolutionists have faith in the validity of the “theory“ of evolution. They can’t PROVE it beyond a shadow of any doubt. They have “faith“ that it is true.

 

Fourthly we have “Subjectivism.” Subjectivism in the sciences is demonstrated when theories are stated or defended as absolute truth when in reality there is no absolute evidence to prove them so. It can be difficult at times for scientists, when they have spent long amounts of time and effort to prove a theory they believe to be true but the experimental data does not support their theory. Subjectivism is defined as: “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.” In other words when you are subjective in your explanation of something that has not been proven beyond a shadow of any doubt, you are personally believing it to be true without any evidence to the contrary. Another definition of “subjectivism” would be when you describe something that is supposed to happen or be possible to take place with complete assurance that it did or will happen, but cannot verify that it does not in fact happen. That  idea, in science, is a theory, not a proven fact. Let me share with you a very interesting example of this type of scientific suicide.

 

George Wald was an American scientist who studied pigments in the retina. He won a share of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Here is a quote of his regarding how life arose on the earth.

 

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Wald, George, “Innovation and Biology,” Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)

 

Fifthly we have “Exploitation.” This is where scientific theory is used to excuse or justify activities in moral, religious, political, social, educational or economic areas. A dramatic example of this is what happened when Albert Einstein presented his “Theory of General Relativity.” What was his theory? Essentially, it’s a theory of gravity. His Theory of General Relativity can be summarized as, The basic idea is that instead of being an invisible force that simply attracts objects to one another, gravity is a curving or warping of space. The more massive an object, the more it warps the space around it. So we see that while Einstein’s theory of gravity was altering how we understood gravity, people wanted to apply this scientific theory to moral judgments in life. This brought about what was called “Moral Relativism.” This is the view that rather than the Biblical standards for moral standards by which we live which included valuing the sanctity of life, loving our neighbor, honoring our parents, believing in God and obeying His commands, living a holy life moral judgments should be viewed as “relative.” In other words Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint and that no standpoint s uniquely privileged over all others. The impact of moral relativism in a society can be devastating. An example of this is the reign of Hitler over Germany as the Jewish people were classified by him as “sub-human.” Hitler confiscated all their worldly possessions and sentenced them to concentration camps where they were not just overworked, but were also starved and abused. Eventually this led to the eventual extermination of thousands of innocent human beings in gas chambers.

 

You can see therefore that when the Bible’s account of the creation of the world and the universe by God  and mankind being created by God and the Biblical standards for conduct and morality are exchanged for relativism, anything goes.

 

But Donald Chittick in his book, “The Controversy” gives some wise advice. “At the same time we recognize that the Bible speaks truth about areas of scientific interest, we must not make the opposite mistake of assuming that the Bible provides an exhaustive list of truths and therefore all scientific study is worthless.”

 

What Mr. Chittick is saying is we need to be cautious about how we apply the Bible to scientific interpretation of nature and creation. As Christians we recognize that the Bible is a divinely inspired book that contains the ultimate truth of the origin of all creation (through God’s power), the purpose God created (to bring glory to Himself) and the ultimate state of all creation (for people who have accepted Christ as Lord to live with God forever in Heaven).

 

Science is a useful tool to learn more about how God created the known universe and how it functions as well as how living plants and animals exist, but it has limits in explaining how God created and how He maintains its existence. We need to respect the fact that God did not just create all that exists, He also maintains how it exists and has control over how long it may exist.