Some people think that you will have to make a choice from science and religion, but that is just not the case. This is the story …
Revelation through nature
In theology there’s the concept God had revealed himself to us in other ways. One is revelation through inspired Scriptures, and one other is the overall revelation through nature. Some people check with Creation itself as God’s first book of revelation. In Psalm 19:1 it says: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” (ESV), or because the Good News Bible has it “How clearly the sky reveals God’s glory! How plainly it shows what he has done!” This is expanded in Romans 1:20 where it says: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even his everlasting power and Godhead; so that they’re without excuse.”
Science and theology
Unpacking the Scriptures and figuring out what that they mean is theology. Unpacking the foundations of nature and creation and the way things work is science. For Christians, God is the creator of the Bible and Creator of the universe, in other words he’s the creator of the laws of creation, which science is studying.
So, for believers theology and science are each figuring out the foundations God wrote. If we imagine that the revelations of God cannot contradict themselves, then conceptually it makes no logical sense in any respect to think that science and theology are in conflict.
Magisteria
There are different approaches to conceptualise the connection between science and religion. Some see religion and science as separate or parallel, independent disciples, like sport and art, that are what Stephen Jay Gould calls “non-overlapping magisteria”. Historically many individuals saw science as unravelling God’s rules of creation which meant that science was a sub-set of theology. Others who saw science as just the complete set of data, saw theology as one in all the sciences. Some see science and theology as running on parallel tracks, which overlap in ethics.
Where conflict exists
Where conflict might occur is in areas where theories of science and theology have developed independently of one another and due to this fact appear to contradict one another. This doesn’t mean that religion and science are fundamentally in conflict, however it may mean that one scientific theory clashes with a specific theological interpretation of Scripture.
This has in actual fact happened a variety of times through history, but a specific point of friction doesn’t imply a general conflict. History shows us that the event of science and theology are intertwined and co-dependent. The influence is two-way, and there are examples of where theology has modified under the influence of science, and where science has been influenced by theology.
History of science
Modern science arose out of the monotheistic worldview that God created (Genesis 1:1) and designed the universe by his power (Jeremiah 10:12), that it was consistent, logical, ordered and was based upon rules (Jeremiah 33:25). For Christians there was the assumption that God is similar yesterday, today and ceaselessly (Hebrews 13:8), so the foundations were prone to remain established, unchanged and secure (Psalm 93:1) through time (Psalm 119:160). Furthermore, He couldn’t lie (Numbers 23:19), and creation was essentially good (James 1:13).
As a result, lots of the pioneers of science have been churchmen, like monks and priests with a powerful belief in God, trained in theology and driven by a desire to unravel the foundations which God wrote. These men believed that the works of the Lord were great, and so they delighted in studying them (Psalm 111:2).
God-fearing scientists
Key people within the history of science have seen no contradiction in believing in God and science. Roger Bacon (1214-1294), considered the daddy of empirical research, who is commonly credited with formalising the scientific method, was an English Franciscan friar who advocated finding God’s Laws of Nature.
Cardinal Baronius (1538-1607) remarked that the Bible teaches “methods to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”. Isaac Newton (1643–1727) was an Anglican and a physicist who developed the science of gravity, but he was also a Christian apologist, obsessive about the Bible. He wrote more concerning the Bible than science.
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) was a church elder for a time within the Church of Scotland and later at an Anglican church in London. He believed that the Bible was the infallible Word of God. He is known for his contributions in establishing electromagnetic theory and his work in chemistry equivalent to establishing electrolysis. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was an Anglican who was going to be trained within the priesthood but was offered a voyage on the Beagle to the Galapagos Islands in 1831. He denied that he was an atheist and thought that evolution helped to clarify the mechanism God developed to create life forms. He saw no contradiction with the Bible.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was an Augustinian friar in Moravia, who developed foundational research into heredity, the premise of contemporary genetics.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who was Jewish said, “I would like to know the mind of God. The rest are details.”
In more moderen times the Human Genome Project which decoded DNA was led by Francis Collins who’s a Christian, and who went on to put in writing The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief in 2006.
When science led to a change in theology
Sometimes science leads people to revisit their theology. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was a Christian who developed modern astronomy and suggested that the earth rotates across the sun. In the seventeenth century, Galileo’s theory of astronomy was pitted against the Catholic Church’s theology. The Church’s religious belief was that the sun rotated across the earth. This was based upon a literal reading of Psalm 104:5 which reads: “He set the earth on its foundations, in order that it should never be moved” (ESV), and Ecclesiastes 1:5 which says, “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”
Galileo, who also believed the Bible, used recent telescope technology to watch the celebs and planets, and he got here to the view that the Earth and all other planets were revolving across the Sun. Galileo published papers to advertise the heliocentric or sun-centred universe. This was enough to get him called to Rome by the Inquisition and be accused of heresy.
In 1633, he was convicted of being a heretic and sentenced to imprisonment. In reality his science was not in conflict with the Bible, but in conflict with a specific interpretation of the Bible, which was later revisited and altered in keeping with recent advances in science.
When theology led to a change in science
On the opposite hand theology has also led to a change in science. Nearly 100 years ago, Albert Einstein proposed a steady-state universe. A starting of time didn’t satisfy him philosophically.
In 1931, cosmologist Rev Georges Lemaître (1894-1966), who was a Belgian Catholic priest, advocated that point and space had a starting. This was later mocked because the “Big Bang” theory, which is the way it is thought today. Lemaître’s theory was initially met with scepticism from his fellow scientists (including Einstein), for supporting the biblical view of creation that there was indeed a starting (Genesis 1:1), and that God was stretching out the heavens because it expanded (Jeremiah 10:12). Later science accepted this theory, which was influenced by theology. Lemaître saw no conflict between science and religion, and he served as President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for the last six years of his life. The Big Bang theory neither proves nor disproves God, but the concept there was a starting is each biblical and scientific.
When we differ
All through history, different Christians have held different interpretations of parts of the Bible. Attacking scientific theories due to a specific belief of what the Bible says is just not defending the integrity or the reliability of the Bible, however it is defending a specific theological interpretation of the Bible. Other interpretations are also available. We shouldn’t be so smug as to suppose our own interpretation of God’s revelation in Scripture must be the proper one, and well-established science due to this fact should be improper.
Humility is one in all the fruits of the Holy Spirit. As God said to Job: “Where were you once I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me for those who understand” (Job 38:4-7). We will need to have the humility to just accept that our interpretation of Scripture is likely to be improper sometimes. It wouldn’t be the primary time.
For lots of the great scientists of the past, it was their faith that drove their science. They didn’t have to make a choice from science and faith, and neither can we.
