VERITAS
"Science vs. Christianity"
By Craig Branch
January 2005
One of the primary goals we have for producing Areopagus
Journal is to provide a sound theological treatment of
important worldview issues in a way that bridges
the gap between the
rarified air of intellectualism and the dumbed-down level
of mass media. This issue on Science and Christianity is
quite a challenge in that regard as it is a complex issue
covering a large number of related issues. But one doesn’t
have to be a scientist or philosopher to realize the relevance
of this topic. It affects many areas of our lives including
public policy and our efforts at personal evangelism (i.e.,
overcoming the barriers to faith that have been consistently
erected by years of public school education).
Is there indeed a conflict between
Christianity and science? If so, which side is at fault?
Is there a way to bring a
rapprochement between the two perspectives? There is indeed
significant hostility from many atheists, agnostics, and
secularists toward Christianity’s (and many religion’s)
perceived intrusions into the field of science. On the other
hand, there is significant hostility among Christians toward
much of modern science. However, an important distinction
needs to be made between Christians who oppose science and
those who oppose scientism, which is addressed in the journal.
Indeed when one considers the
topic of Christianity and its relation to science, one
usually thinks about the dispute
over evolution and creation. While that is a significant
issue, it is merely one manifestation among many of the real
issue: what is real science and is there a valid relation
between God, philosophy, ethics and science? Can religion/theology
have anything significant to say about things in fields like
ecology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, applied mathematics,
physical sciences and resulting technologies, and medical
science? The next Areopagus Journal will be devoted to the
issue of evolution and creation, but this one will investigate
these more fundamental questions. It is beyond the scope
of this journal issue to present in exhaustive detail the
evolution (see, I can use that word) of the conflict between
science and Christianity, or the long history of the actual
relationship between the two, but we will attempt to present
you with an adequate understanding, and hopefully answer
the question, “Can Christianity and science ever be
friends?” So, we will examine various understandings
of science, the scientific method, how the conflict arose,
the limits of science, and how science and Christianity can
and do cohere.
The Contemporary War between Science and Religion
One doesn’t have to look far to encounter hostility
from secular humanists and scientists toward religion. There
are a number of popular magazines produced by “professional” skeptics
which offer a steady stream of rather vitriolic attacks on
Christian views on science. For example, in Free Inquiry,
a laureate in the International Academy of Humanism, Arthur
Clarke writes,
“Perhaps we should thank the Taliban for finishing
the task the Crusades began nine hundred years ago—proving
beyond further dispute that religion is incompatible with
civilization. . . .Although religious beliefs mainly result
from brain damage acquired in early life, the worse symptoms
(e.g., churchgoing) are often delayed for years.”[i]
In the same issue, Arthur Caplan,
director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics, charges that
President Bush’s Council on Bioethics reflects “religious
rather than secular principles” in that, “The
majority of the Council argues that human life cannot be
treated as a commodity, that it is wrong to ‘manufacture’ life,
and that the human life including cloned embryos has the
same dignity and moral worth as a person from the moment
of its creation.” He calls any attempt to cast that
position in any secular sense “neither consistent nor
coherent.”[ii]
Free Inquiry, along with other
popular publications like Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic
(which frequently feature
well-known figures such as evolutionary biologists Richard
Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould, National Center for
Science Education director, Eugenie Scott, and Massimo Pigliucci)
give the impression that real science and religion are totally
incompatible and that religion (read “superstitious
myths”) stands in the way of progress. Yet, in a moment
of confusion, one evolutionary scientist and paleontologist
writes, “The larger unanswered questions are why America
is the only First World national culture to retain Third
World levels of belief in God.”[iii]
The common perspective largely
engendered and perpetuated by the secular liberal education
establishment and media
is that (1) science has disproved the existence of God, and
(2) that science is the liberator of progress from the restrictions
imposed by the traditional religious-based culture. Thus
the nomenclature of “warfare” between science
and Christianity exists in popular western culture.
The anti-religious scientists
are not the only parties in this warfare model, however.
The other party is North American
fundamentalism, characterized by its aggressive reaction
to science as anti-Christian. The idea of science as an enemy
of Christianity is seen in some popular writers, speakers,
and debaters such as Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish
of the Institute of Creation Research, and Ken Ham. The images
and language used such as, “Battle for the Bible” and “evolution
is Satan’s weapon in his war with God,” while
theologically accurate (Eph.
6:10-18; 2
Cor. 10:3-5), are not altogether helpful or
conducive to dialogue. There is
a large and growing number of respected scientists who (unlike
Richard Dawkins and friends) freely acknowledge the limits
of the scientific method, and who are open to exploring the
possibility of a more positive relationship between science
and religion. In fact, there are large numbers of influential
scientists, some Nobel Prize winners, who are Christians.
One such scientist is Stephen Barr, a theoretical particle
physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University
of Delaware. He writes,
What many take to be a conflict
between religion and science is really something else.
It is a conflict between religion
and materialism. Materialism is regarded as scientific, and
indeed it is often called “scientific materialism,” even
by its proponents, yet there are no legitimate reasons for
considering it scientific. It is rather a school of philosophy,
one defined by the belief that nothing exists except matter.
However, there is more to materialism than this cold ontological
negation. For many, scientific materialism is not a bloodless
philosophy, but a passionately held ideology. Indeed, it
is the ideology of a great part of the scientific world.
Its adherents see science as having a mission that goes beyond
the mere investigation of nature and the discovery of physical
laws. That mission is to free mankind from superstition in
all its forms, and especially in the form of religious belief.[iv]
In fact, the true allegiance
of the atheistic “crusader” scientists
surfaced recently when they apparently lost one of their
most respected champions who now claims to be a theist. Renowned
British philosopher and Oxford professor Anthony Flew, son
of a Methodist minister, became an atheist at the age of
15. Flew, now 81, has been proclaiming the lack of evidence
for the existence of God for decades in books, journals,
forums, and debates. But recently Flew has concluded that
some sort of super intelligence or first cause must have
created the universe. He says it is the only good or plausible
explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of
nature. He states, for example, that biologists’ investigation
of DNA “has shown, by almost unbelievable complexity
of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that
intelligence must have been involved.”[v]
It should be noted that Flew’s new position, is that
of a theoretical theism and not a practical theism, like
Judaism or Christianity. Nonetheless, as noted in an article
from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago, “At
least, Flew and Faith, science and religion, agree that the
complexity of life demands some origin in intelligence and
purpose not involved in people’s lives. These are important
claims and genuine advances in understanding.”[vi]
Ironically, the first formal account of Flew’s new
perspective will be in the introduction of the new edition
of his book God and Philosophy to be released soon by the
major atheistic publisher Prometheus Press. Now the professional
secular scientists are scrambling and attempting to spin
Flew’s defection as “of little consequence.”
Reconciling Science and Religion
In this issue of Areopagus Journal, we offer and article
by Nancy Pearcey, the Francis Schaeffer Scholar at World
Journalism Institute, “The War that Wasn’t:
Why Christiantity Is a Science-Starter.” She rebuts
the stereotypical claim that Christianity (i.e., the medieval
Roman Catholic Church) tried to suppress the scientific
advances of men like Galileo, Copernicus, and others—and
by extension, “anti-science” (anti-Darwinism)
gatekeepers from some public schools. Pearcey demonstrates
that, “Most historians today agree that the main
impact Christianity had on the origin and development of
modern science was positive.”
Pearcey documents that the Enlightenment
period “was
conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists
and humanists who attempted to claim credit for the rise
of science.” She rightly concludes that Christians
need to be informed and active in communicating to others
that ethical issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell
research, and various forms of genetic engineering cannot
be divorced from true science. We answer the question of
why and what we must do with the data.
For the serious student of the
history and interaction between Christianity and Science,
I recommend the book, The Foundation
of Dialogue in Science and Religion written by the respected
Anglican theologian Alister McGrath who also has a PhD in
molecular biophysics and natural sciences. One devastating
blow to the secularist image is his comment, “While
Richard Dawkins asserts (‘argues’ is hardly an
appropriate word) that faith is ‘one of the world’s
great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder
to eradicate’, this is not a view that commands much
support within the scientific community.”[vii]
Two additional articles in the
journal will help you to understand the recent Intelligent
Design Movement (ID), the
focus of a large and growing number of Christian (and some
non-Christian) academics and scientists who work in various
fields of theoretical and applied science. First, “God’s
Handiwork: How Scientific Evidence Points to the Existence
of God” by Dr. Jay Richards, Senior Fellow at the cutting
edge Christian organization, Discovery Institute (www.discovery.org).
In addition to outlining the amazing evidence for intelligent
design in nature, Dr. Richards explains the negative legacy
of materialism and the positive advances of the ID movement.
He points out how the present “evolution” of
media coverage is moving from negative to more positive coverage,
as scholarly OpEd pieces in major newspapers and magazines
and coverage in more conservative outlets are demonstrating
the superiority of the ID argument. The “battle” is
now focused on science, educational policy and legislative
actions. Richards points out the need for more Christians
to become informed and active in the public arena through
intentional apologetic influence with our neighbors.
Secondly, ARC’s Dr.
Steve Cowan exposes the flaws
in what is called “Methodological Naturalism” (or
scientific naturalism), the view that science, by definition,
can only allow natural explanations. Methodological naturalism
is often used as a weapon to squelch debate in the “war” between
secular science and religion. But, Cowan shows that methodological
naturalism is both question-begging and a science-stopper.
Also, to help everyone “renew their minds” in
this area we have included a recommended booklist. One of
those books is Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?,
written by Dr. Henry Schaefer, one of the most distinguished
physical scientist in the world, a five time nominee for
the Nobel Prize. Dr. Schaefer taught chemistry at the University
of California at Berkeley for years and is now director of
the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University
of Georgia. The book carries 28 recommendations from science
professors and theologians and is available through the Apologetics
Resource Center.
Also included in this issue is
a “Christian Apologetics
Manifesto” written by Christian philosopher Doug Groothuis.
It’s stated purpose is to “ignite the holy fire
of apologetics passion and action. . .because of (a) the
waning influence of the Christian worldview in public and
private life in America today and (b) the pandemic of anti-intellectualism
in the contemporary church, and (c) the very command of God
Himself to further the truth.” Not everyone will agree
with every detail of Groothuis’ manifesto, but we should
all resonate with his call to intellectual engagement with
our culture.
In closing, I want to
affirm that there is no real conflict between true Science
and
Christianity. The conflict arises
when one moves from science to scientism, a philosophical
atheistic presupposition, and when one does not recognize
the inherent limitations of science due to our human finitude.
The Bible reveals that the cosmos indeed declares the Creator.
The Psalmist writes, “The heavens are telling of the
glory of God and their expanse is declaring the works of
His hands” (Psa.
19:1). And as Paul tells us, everyone knows that
there is an omnipotent, omniscient Creator through
observing His creation and that God has given His image bearers
an awareness of absolute morality and ethics. He goes on
to warn that it is man’s sinfulness, his rebellion,
that suppresses these truths (Rom.
1:18-25; 2:14-16).
That is the presupposition that we operate from in the apologetic
enterprise of reasoning in the marketplace (Acts
17:16-34).
Craig
Branch is the Director of the Apologetics Resource
Center, Birmingham, Alabama.
Order
an annual subscription to Areopagus Journal.
NOTES
[i]
Arthur C. Clarke, “Thoughts for Today (and Tomorrow),” Free
Inquiry 23:1 (Winter 2003/02): 16. [ii] Arthur Caplan, “Attack of the Anti-Cloners,” Free
Inquiry 23:1 (Winter 2003/02): 28.
[iii] Gregory Paul, “The Secular Revolution of the
West,” Free Inquiry 22:3 (Summer 2002): 33.
[iv] Stephen M. Barr, “Retelling the Story of Science,” found
at www.leaderu.com/science/storyofscience.html.
[v] See Associated Press article, December 9, 2004 at www.abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=315976.
[vi] William Schweiker, “Faith & Flew,” Sightings
(Dec. 16, 2004) found at www.marty-center.uchicago.
edu/sightings/archive_2004/1216.shtml).
[vii] Alister McGrath, The Foundation of Dialogue in Science
and Religion (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998), 25.
(top) |
