When Science And The Bible Collide

In the previous blog, I mentioned a heated Facebook conversation over Creationism. It is interesting what people will write in one or two sentence snippets of ideas when the only opinions seem to count and the facts don’t get in the way. Accordingly, many things were said during the course of the discussion, with little evidentiary support for a cherished opinion. Accordingly, during the conversation it was alleged that the Bible is not meant to be a scientific textbook and that when Moses wrote the creation account in Genesis, he did so merely to answer the questions of an ignorant people. These two statements were given in support of the position that the Creation account in Genesis is not to be taken literally. Both of these statements, however, are things that have truth in them but it is the inferences drawn from them that are all wrong.

The first statement which maintains that the Bible is not a scientific textbook is a truism that cannot be denied. The Bible is not meant as a Science textbook; it is the story of man's fall and God’s subsequent work of redemption. It is, however, a miraculous book authored by none other than the God, Himself [2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:] and as such, when it makes a statement that touches on an area of Science, it should be listened to. To presume otherwise, is to place Science in a superior position over the Bible in such matters.

We must consider, however, that Science is man-centered. It is by definition the “observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.”Alarmingly, it is being looked to explain practically every aspect of our lives and our universe. There is no end to what man seeks to explain through the realm of Science. Even matters that once were considered as sacred to faith and practice are now being scrutinized under the auspices of Social Science, resulting in what once was called sin being now considered disease or a natural occurring alternative life style. The clear truths in Romans 1, which describe the degeneration of fallen man are explained away to make way for this new scientifically enlightened thinking. However, when we modify our interpretation of the Bible to conform to Scientific thought, it must be considered that we are making the Word of God subservient to man’s observations as well as theoretical interpretations.

In defense of the position that Science is superior to Scripture is the statement that Science is truth and that “all truth is God’s truth.” However, when we consider the man-centered nature of Science, we realize its vulnerability. Science is based on observations and where observations are impossible Science tries to fill in the void with guesses. This is its weakness. While Science is useful in lots of areas, there are limits to what Science can be used to explain. For this reason, then, we must draw a line where Science is, and is not, useful in helping to explain things mentioned in the Bible. For example, when we say that Moses wrote the creation account to answer questions of an ignorant people we implying that since  what Moses wrote is not reliable in light of present day Science, it must be seen as something other than factual. However, we must consider the reliability of Science concerning this topic which is in reality, the origins of the universe. When we do this, the vulnerability of Science is exposed.

The validity of Science is based on the validity of its observations. Concerning the origins of the universe, man was not there, so his observations are limited to what has come afterward. From these observations man has attempted to put together theories or best guesses as to what actually occurred. On the other hand, Scripture maintains that what Moses wrote is the actual Word of God. Accordingly, it is God’s Creation account. Since Science is dependent on observation, it cannot be used to contradict God’s eyewitness account in an area where it (Science) can only make guesses.

Consider this statement from the book of Hebrews: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2For by it the elders obtained a good report.3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear (Hebrews 11:1-3).The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that there are things that we can know through observation of things that can be seen (Science), and things that we can know only through believing the Word of the living God (faith). There is then a limitation to Science. Accordingly, (from Hebrews) when Science is being used to explain the origins of the universe it has exceeded its limits. In view of this statement from Hebrews we need to consider that when Science and God’s Word seem to conflict we need not trust the superiority of Science over God’s Word. Instead we need to trust the Word of God and not lean on Science to understand what it says in areas where Science is extended beyond its limits.

A Slippery Slope

When I was a teenager, I became embroiled in a discussion concerning Creationism with my older brother. He was defending the literal seven day creation as in Genesis chapters one through three. I on the other hand argued for a reconciliation of the Biblical account with modern science. After all, to my mind, reason must prevail, and there must be some way to make sense of the Biblical account in such a way so as not to go against established scientific evidence. This young Christian wanted to believe that what the Bible was true but to believe this in the face of I had learned in the name of Science put my faith to the test, with the result that I unwittingly changed how I viewed the Bible.  I had unwittingly strayed from simply taking the Word at its simple literal truth exchanging that truth for an explanation more palatable to the world in which I lived. I maintained my belief in the creator but I disputed the method by which He did His Creation.

This all came to mind when I recently overhear a conversation concerning Creationism which is how the literal genesis account in normally called. However during that conversation it was suggested that the issue is not Creationism, but Literalism. The inference was that it is possible to believe that God created the universe in a time frame and method in agreement with modern scientific thought. Consequently, according to this way of thinking, one can be considered a Creationist without taking the Genesis account literally. The Literalist, on the other hand, has decided to accept a scenario that runs contrary to set scientific principles. The one position sees that where science and the Bible are at odds the Bible must be explained in such a way as to reconcile the two. The other position sees the Bible as Truth and where it appears to be at odds with science, science must be wrong.Consequently, whether we believe in the literal Genesis account of creation or in one that is more acceptable to modern thought is determined on how we view literal interpretation of the Bible.

Literal interpretation of the Bible has long been at the core of Fundamental/Evangelical thinking.  To be sure, it is at the core of the Gospel. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15 makes it clear that the Gospel is believing and receiving the literal Truth that Jesus, God the Son, came to die on the Cross for our sins and rose again from the dead. To deny these literal facts is to deny the Gospel. However, the question is that beyond the Gospel, must we always interpret the Bible literally? The answer to this is a resounding “Yes!”  If we cannot accept that what the Bible is saying is literal and accurate in all things, then we cannot be certain it is literal and accurate concerning the Gospel. When we stray from a literal interpretation of the Bible we open ourselves to all kinds of practical interpretations of the Bible that take away from its central Truth. Liberal theological thought is based on creative interpretations that reduce the Bible to allegory or simply a guide to better living instead of the Truth that the Bible is the Truth of God’s work of redemption of a fallen human race.

And so, as a teenager, and as one who believed the Gospel, I tried reconciling what I had been taught in the name of Science with the Truth of the Bible, not considering the dangers of doing so. If someone had suggested that I was stepping out into liberal Christian thought I would have thought them ridiculous for I had the notes of none other than the respected biblical scholar, C.I. Scofield himself right in my Bible. Scofield for all his support of a literal interpretation of the Bible supported the gap theory that opened the door to other creative interpretations of Genesis in otherwise sound Biblical churches. It was not until later that I realized what a slippery slope this is. The Truth is, we are on dangerous ground when we attempt to reconcile the literal Truth of the Bible with modern thought.  The same Bible that portrays the seven days of creation is the same that portrays a literal Adam and Eve and the same that portrays a literal death burial and resurrection of God the Son.  If we are not going to take the Bible literal in all its points, but still claim to hold to the Gospel then we have the difficulty of sorting out what is and what is not to be taken literally.

Should we decide to interpret the Bible in light of scientific thought we must consider that such thought is man, not God, centered. While science has brought us many advances over the history of things it does have its limitations. It is not as conclusive as prevailing thought would have us believe. When we reject the literal creation account in Genesis we are placing the science of geology over the Bible.  However, when we do this we must consider how many “ologies” there are under the umbrella of science. Psychology, sociology head up the list of such “ologies” that have permeated modern otherwise conservative Christian thinking to the point that so many churches have gotten away from the Truth and are condoning what was once seen as sin. The Gospel has taken a back seat as churches seek to be seen as relevant in a secular society. To be sure, when we forsake the literal interpretation of Scripture we have begun to descend a slippery slope.

{Note to readers: There is more to come on this—How reliable is Science any way?—Can a good Christian believe something other than a literal interpretation of Genesis?}