Science and Religion in Conflict?

Many adult Christians have a less than positive view of science. Likewise, many scientists disrespect religion. This phenomenon is complex and difficult to explain. It has deep historical roots reaching back hundreds of years. Certain 17th century Enlightenment thinkers were anxious to condemn the church and accuse it of suppressing philosophy and the sciences. Similar sentiments were expressed by two well-known academics in the 19th century. Scientist John William Draper and Cornell University president Andrew Dixon White both wrote treatises concerning the conflict between science and religion. In particular, President White’s work is still powerfully influential in promoting the view called the “warfare thesis.”

Surprisingly, according to historian of science Dr. Ronald Numbers, “Throughout most of modern history science and religion have not been in a state of conflict. That has emerged, at least the perception of a conflict, roughly within the last 130 years or so.” Dr. Numbers mentions that in the late 20th century, some creationists “hate the fact that science has been high-jacked by agnostics and atheists to offer such speculative theories as organic evolution.” Perhaps science gets a bad name among some church members not only because evolutionary scientists relentlessly promote beliefs which collide with their worldview, but also because in their past experience, scientific principles have been ignored, under-stressed, or poorly explained. Discussion of science topics in the context of faith-building instruction is often relegated to a distant or inaccessible realm, perhaps because our pastors do not feel confident drawing spiritual lessons from the world of science.

Having fear, suspicion, or distrust of science may be tantamount to diminishing our understanding of one of the two revelations by which man comes to know God. Man knows his creator by virtue of God’s dual revelation: general revelation and special revelation. Ken Samples, in A World of Difference, explains general revelation, stating, “God’s existence, power, wisdom, majesty, and glory are made known in a general way to all people at all times in all places through the created order.” This truth is set forth in Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:19-20. Furthermore, Samples, speaking of special revelation, explains that “God’s more specific self-disclosure comes in and through his great redemptive acts, events, and words.” Special revelation is expressed in Hebrews 1:1-4. Science is an exceptional vehicle for amplifying our understanding of God’s general revelation. For pastors and church members, science should be satisfying and rewarding, not just because of its intrinsic fascination, but also because it can help reveal the existence, power, wisdom, majesty, and glory of the Father.

Truth and Reality

Whenever I raise the subject of evolution with friends, strong emotions are generated. Many of these emotions are the result of a misunderstanding about what constitutes good science. Perhaps there are even some scientists who possess an inaccurate vision of good science. The study of what science IS may not be as simple as one may think. But why is this so? Let’s give a few common defining phrases for science. Sometimes science is defined as discovery of “how the world works.” Science is also described as “an organized body of knowledge.” The term “truth” is also used as scientists describe their quest “to discover truth about the operation of natural laws.” Finally, science is frequently used “to describe useful models of reality.”

Which definition would I choose? All of the above! Why, then, would I claim divergent emotions concerning evolution result from efforts to define science? It is because most professional scientists attach a caveat to their definition. Science has changed significantly in the past two centuries. During the 19th century, the practice of science drifted toward methodological naturalism--the view that all science is to be conducted as if the supernatural did not exist (see 9/29/07 post). Operationally, this methodology still successfully identifies powerful principles of God-ordained laws of nature. However, it rules out discussion of even the possibility that theistic intervention was responsible for such events as life’s sudden appearance on earth, the explosive appearance of multiple complex life forms at the onset of the Cambrian period, and the transcendent recent creation of man in the Image of God. The caveat, therefore, is limiting science to natural explanations only. Scientific consideration of possible supernatural intervention, even when an apparent investigative “dead end” is reached, is off limits.

The tension generated when evolution is discussed results from a de facto exclusion of the supernatural. Evolutionary scientists’ opening rule for investigating the history of earth’s life forms is the following: “Any investigation must permit only natural causes and effects as reality.” Therefore, only a naturalistic conclusion is possible for any apparent changes which appear in the fossil record. Such a conclusion forces the establishment of an evolutionary conceptual framework, one into which every observation concerning living things must fit. It is no wonder the assertion “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” has acquired such power. No one is permitted to think or make sense of things in any other way.

Almost all scientists agree with the definitions of science outlined in the first paragraph. The problem may center on their interpretation of “truth” and “useful models of reality.” Exclusion of the “God option” is a serious barrier in man’s search for truth and reality. Inclusion of the “God option” is an exciting investigative possibility in our truth and reality search.

Different Strokes

The famous American idiom “Different Strokes for Different Folks” tells us that different people like or need different things. Let’s examine how multitudes of important scientific discoveries in the past fifty to one hundred years have impacted two entirely different groups of “folks.”

We are living in an age of scientific discovery unlike any bygone era. Discoveries are occurring at an accelerating rate. Proliferating knowledge in biological and physical sciences has enabled scientists to paint an ever more complete picture of reality as the last half of the 20th century moved into the 21st. Big Bang cosmology has been enriched with startling detail about how fine-tuned the universe really is. Earth sciences have advanced far beyond unlocking merely the fact of plate tectonics; they now reveal a world of detail about the intricate workings of our living planet. Biological sciences have far surpassed the landmark identification of DNA as the fundamental genetic material with its double helix structure. Finally, physical science has expanded man’s knowledge of molecules, atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, and Newtonian physics into the worlds of relativity, exotic particle physics, and quantum theory.

There are two ways to interpret this proliferation of knowledge. Scientists who believe naturalism explains all reality (metaphysical naturalists) view such advances in man’s knowledge as affirming the naturalistic worldview: nature is all there is and is the ultimate metaphysical reality. But those with a theistic worldview perceive the same knowledge explosion as a clear manifestation of gifts given by God, the author of all things. The two groups examine identical evidence, but reach different conclusions about its meaning.

There are many cases where the same evidence is cited to support different conclusions. Life forms on earth and the physical systems which support them either (a) arose naturalistically according to an unknown self-organizing property of matter, or (b) arose theistically from a supernatural, creative act of God. These two views of origins are on diametric opposites of the worldview spectrum. When researching answers to this “either/or” option, it behooves the Christian to “get it right.” Naturalism has many surprising, even shocking logical outcomes which should alarm Christians; if we “get it wrong,” we begin a slide down a dangerous slope. Upcoming posts will address these outcomes and dangers. We need to focus on discovering the truth about origins. In so doing, we proceed beyond the relativistic “Different Strokes for Different Folks” mentality which drives our post-modern world.

Design Makes Sense

Many evolutionists ridicule the idea that nature’s designs indicate a designer. Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick, among many others, claim appearance of design is misleading and does not really signal input of intelligence in the features of nature, especially among living things. Do not be fooled, they warn. Their warnings cover a broad range: total body plan, integrated organ systems, complex organs, tissue types, and on down to the fundamental structural unit, the cell.

It is worthwhile to distinguish between nature’s patterns and nature’s designs. For example, many meteorological phenomena show patterns--regularity of cloud shapes, predictable events in storm development, and uniqueness of snowflakes. Patterns are not necessarily indicators of design. Why? Because designs also manifest potential for function, but patterns do not. One may look at the DNA molecule and admire the regularity and complexity of its pattern. Beyond the beauty of its pattern, however, the DNA molecule is packed with functional capabilities. It replicates itself and synthesizes RNA which, in turn, directs the production of thousands of proteins, the physical building blocks of living systems. The DNA molecule is perhaps the most elegant example of design in all of biology. It is actually a language, spoken in code. It directs thousands of functions. These functions are carried out inside the cell—life’s fundamental structural unit.

And what of the cell? Dr. Fazale Rana, Reasons to Believe scholar, has just written a book entitled The Cell’s Design. Readers could admire the description of complex, integrated cell structure. But put simply, structure indicates function. There are many events taking place inside the cell wall enabled by devices analogous to man-made machines. These machines help construct products and direct events which impact the working of the entire organism in multi-cellular creatures. As I read Dr. Rana’s volume, I listed over a dozen functions taking place inside the cell. It is an injustice to list only a handful: manufacturing, operating, transporting, regulating.

Naturalistic scientists such as University of Chicago’s James Shapiro attribute phenomena such as the cells’ capabilities to the intrinsic capabilities of matter. He says cells are good at “figuring things out, processing information, analyzing complicated situations, and making good decisions about them.” He does not credit the Creator for design features which produce complex, purposeful function in living things. Instead, matter alone gets the credit. Contrast Psalm 139:14… “I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” God, the Maker, has infinite capabilities as the designer. In turn, He imparts wonderful capabilities to creatures having the characteristics of design.

Nothing...Makes Sense...

Around midpoint of the last century, bio-scientists increasingly began to talk about evolution unifying every dimension of life science. In 1958, evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith wrote “The main unifying idea in biology is Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection.” Theodosius Dobzhansky first introduced a similar statement in 1964 in an article in American Zoologist, and later resurrected it as the title of a 1973 article in the American Biology Teacher. He stated “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This statement has become a self-affirming mantra of committed evolutionists. Its value as an expression of philosophical worldview surpasses its truth value. Similar sentiments are now common in biology textbooks.

It is unusual to research any field of bio-science without encountering frequent invocation of the term evolution. For instance, while investigating the metamorphosis and migration of the monarch butterfly, I encountered frequent references to the evolution of four stage insect metamorphosis. Whether one reads popular life science articles written for the layman, or the scholarly writings scientists produce for their peers, it is not unusual for many topics to be framed in evolutionary terms. It is also a practice of authors in social or behavioral science.

The 1950s and 1960s were days of heady discussion and transition from old style Darwinist evolutionary biologists who emphasized the organism, to a different set of scientists who stressed discoveries at the molecular level. There were groups of scientists who felt more comfortable in one camp or the other. What developed has become known as the “modern evolutionary synthesis,” or “Neo-Darwinism.” All disciplines in biology were eventually united under evolution’s banner. The view that evolution explains everything is promoted relentlessly.

When lawyers battle in courtrooms over guilt or innocence, they interpret almost every shred of evidence to favor their client. But establishing legal innocence does not always equate with establishing truth. So it is with the verdict on evolution. In the courtroom of the classroom and culture where evolution is tried, we must be committed to finding truth, not merely claiming victory for a philosophical belief system. Evidence for evolution is ambiguous, incomplete, and circumstantial. Sudden creation events along the timeline of earth’s history, including the special creation of man, seem entirely plausible and rational. “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” seems to be an over-reach designed to sway the jury unfairly.

Metamorphosis and Migration

Flashback to our early days of child rearing: Collect a few milkweed caterpillars, the familiar larvae of the monarch butterfly…Keep them well supplied for a week or more with fresh milkweed leaves in a jar…Place a stick in the jar…Watch the caterpillars select a location to transform into a chrysalis…Wait patiently…And, voila! An adult monarch butterfly appears…Bid the insect Bon voyage! I would not have believed this activity had made such an impact on our children. I was wrong.

This summer, our adult son collected numerous milkweed caterpillars in Iowa. He tapped the youthful enthusiasm of his student athletes in the project to care for them while he traveled. The result? Success! One later email attached a photograph entitled “New Baby.” The baby was an adult monarch preparing to leave its adopted home. It was dutifully released, likely to produce another generation of monarchs before summer ended. Perhaps it even traveled to eastern Illinois where our daughter and her children collected several tiny caterpillars and watched each eventually become a chrysalis. We now await more “new babies.”

Even my wife and I have become immersed in this youth renewal activity. Three healthy monarch caterpillars greedily devoured leaf after leaf in my office. Then they energetically scouted their jar environment in order to locate an ideal spot to produce stage three in their metamorphosis--emerald green, delicately formed, exquisitely gold-bejeweled masterpieces. Upon release after emerging, this generation of monarchs will make their long journey of several thousand miles to special locations in southern California or Mexico. They will return to those traditional wintering spots by using a guidance system known only to them and to their Maker, as though the four stage process of metamorphosis had not already rewarded us with enough wonderment.

Historically, scientists have wrestled with terms like vitalism and élan vital--the “something special” that living things, including monarch butterflies, possess. Researchers often address these unique abilities on a reductionist level, attempting to explain the behaviors by pinpointing an identifiable physical process. Such research should continue. But we may also ponder whether mysterious behaviors in animals, or even the unique qualities of consciousness in humans, are special gifts bestowed by the Creator, known fully only to Him.

All Things Hold Together

Indicators of an intelligent Creator stare at us from the microcosm to the macrocosm. Design features logically and rationally point to a designer. In the world of nature, from the very small to the very large, denial of multiple examples of design, and by extension the existence of a designer, would appear irrational. Affirmation of design has abundant rational support. I have mused about writers of scripture who seem insightful about the natural world. No, the Bible is not a science textbook. It is, rather, a textbook about God, His actions, and His purpose in this cosmos. But as a science teacher, some scripture passages cause me to reflect on what clearly seem to be scientific insights.

Colossians 1:17 contains fascinating propositions in the light of discoveries made in the past few centuries. In various translations, Colossians 1:17 is rendered, “He holds all things together” (NLT), “In Him all things hold together,” (NAS and NIV), and “He holds it all together right up to this moment” (The Message). Contextually, verse 17 clearly refers to the physical cosmos created by God. Prior verses affirm God’s pre-creation existence. In this creation, then, we may ask what is “held together?”

In the world of the atom there is a powerful application to the idea expressed in verse 17. The strong nuclear force, one of the four universal forces, is far and away the strongest. It is over one hundred times as strong as the next strongest force, electromagnetism. This force binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom. It is exceedingly strong, but acts over only distances smaller than the diameter of the nucleus itself. If this force were to cease or become weaker, some commentators have stated we would have a chaos, not a cosmos. I have told my students that atoms have no business hanging together at all, because electromagnetic forces are always trying to make them fly apart. Strong nuclear forces win the day, however. Electromagnetic force, weaker than strong nuclear force but still stronger by far than gravity (10 to the 38th power stronger), succeeds in keeping negatively charged electrons in close proximity to the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Were that not true, we would have another chaos producer!

Who authored these forces? Who keeps the forces reined in--not too strong, not too weak? What sustains the orderliness of matter and what prevents a universal nuclear holocaust? There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin, consistency, and maintenance of the laws governing these forces. As a believer in the Bible and a careful observer of nature, it is not difficult to affirm Colossians 1:17: “He holds all things together.”