paths lecture series: faith & science.pdf

8/13/2019 PAThS Lecture Series: Faith & Science.pdf

1/45


2/45

FAITH AND SCIENCE: Are They in Conflict?

___________________________________________________________________

The Bible teaches us that God has spoken to us through nature (general

revelation) and Scripture (specific revelation). Yet people of faith often fear thatthe study of nature (science) will be a threat to faith while the new globalatheis is declaring science to be the eney of religion. This session wille!plore these issues and seek a Biblical understanding of how faith and sciencerelate.

___________________________________________________________________

The cover article of an issue of Time"#aga$ine%& 'ebruary **& featured a conceptknown as +Singularity., -t is not a atheatical singularity or a black hole& but aoent in huan history when futurists predict that achines will have e!ceeded

huan intelligence by such a argin that huan e!istence as we know it will changeforever.

-agine&/ the article suggests& a coputer scientist that was itself a super0intelligent coputer. -t would work incredibly 1uickly. -t could draw on huge aountsof data effortlessly. -t wouldn,t even take breaks./ #achines creatingachines...technological capacity growing e!ponentially...huan life being e!tendedby decades& even centuries...artificial superhuan intelligence that can write books&ake ethical decisions and appreciate fancy paintings./

The tie line2 3ust over 4 years fro now5 'uturists are predicting that by the year

67 +Singularity, could be upon us. 8uoting again fro the article& -n that year9given the vast increases in coputing power and the vast reductions in the cost ofthe sae& the 1uantity of artificial intelligence created will be about a billion ties thesu of all the huan intelligence that e!ists today./ Sound far0fetched2 :ven ;owwill faith relate to a +singularity, world and what kind of ethical fraework willbe needed to guide that kind of technological e!plosion2

=nderstanding the integration of faith and science is also iportant becauseof how the new atheis is increasingly characteri$ing science as at war withreligion& or at least replacing the need for God. -n words attributed to thesecularist?atheist Bertrand @ussell&

@eligion is soething left over fro the infancy of our intelligenceAit will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines./

Soe of us with conservative hristian upbringings ay have been e!posedto the church,s own version of that +war&, being taught that science wascontrary to Biblical teaching.


3/45

wondered if they can reain in the church given a soewhat anti0intellectualbias that has subtly been advanced. Still others have walked away fro faithcopletely& believing that science is irreconcilable with Scripture and& in fact&disproves Scripture.

Perspectives

e is ore than +God of the gaps.,

e is reator of all.

The capacity of the huan intellect to be curious& to investigate and to learn isa God0given attribute& not a threat to y faith.

The very nature of God hiself& iprinted in what >e has ade& akes

scientific study possible.

There has always been a direct link in Scripture between God,s creation and God,scharacterD

The heavens declare the glory of God,the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

(Psalm 19:1)

Gods invisi!le "#alities$his eternal power and divine nat#re$have !een clearlyseen, !eing #nderstood from what has !een made.

(%omans 1:&')

Because of this - would often leave science classes feeling like - had been in a+worship service&, so to speak. Science is the e!ploration of the natural world. -f our

starting assuption is that discovering how the natural world works will eliinateneed for a God to e!plain what we see in the world& then our faith will be threatened.But does discovering the beauty of a painting ean that there ust not be a painter28uite the oppositeEboth the Fld and ;ew Testaents teach us that the createdorder reveals the glory and character of a creator God. Croverbs declaresD

*wisdom+ was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked o#t thehorion on the face of the deep.... Then was the craftsman at his side. was

filled with delight day after day, re-oicing always in his presence, re-oicing in hiswhole world and delighting in mankind.

(vv. &/, 0'01)


4/45

This was also part of y Hoy in studying the sciences. #ost every scientist& in

fact& has tasted that uni1ue +delight, in discovering the handiwork of Godrevealed in astronoy& biology& botany& cheistry& physics& geology and thebreadth of scientific endeavor.

Ioving God with +all of our inds, (#atthew D4J) actually callsus to thatdelightEe!ploring and being in wonder of all God,s handiwork. ;ot only doeshe +know, it all but he +designed, it all. >ere is an invitation to curiosity andintellectual pursuit in a way that does not threaten our faith& but glorifies andhonors our reator.

ow can we gain furtherperspective on all of this2

Fne of the historic declarations of the hristian faith is the KBelgic onfessionK

(*7LL). -t is of special interest because it asserts that God has revealed his truth intwo booksE>is Mord and >is works& or Scripture and nature.

Specifically& it declares thatD Me know >i by two eans .../

'irst& by the creation& preservation& and governent of the universe& sincethat universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures&great and sall& are as letters to ake us ponder the invisible things of GodD>is eternal power and his divinity& as the apostle Caul says in @oans *D.e akes hiself known to us ore openly by >is holy and divine

Mord& as uch as we need in this life& for >is glory and for the salvation of >isown./

Theologians often characteri$e Scripture as +specific revelation, and nature as+general revelation., Both revelations& being fro God& are +infallible, and bring us tothe conclusion that +all truth is God,s truth., There is therefore no conflict betweenGod,s Mord and his works. The =.S. isworks. The theories of the scientists are constantly changing with the introduction ofnew evidence. By contrast& the Scriptures are always the final& unchanging authorityfor hristian faith.... =ltiately& then& when God,s Mord and God,s Mork are properlyunderstood and taught by reverent scholarship& there is no disunity./

Mhat is +fallible, is our interpretation of Scripture and natureEbecause of the

huan eleent involved.

4


5/45

The study of Scripture is the work of theology and the study of nature is the

work of science.

Both disciplines& theology and science& re1uire huan interpretation& thereby akingthe fallible. The nuber of hristian denoinations provides aple evidence for adiversity of viewpoints when it coes to interpreting Scripture.

Science& too& can be far less than obHective. - would often be surprised during ygraduate studies in engineering at how subHective the interpretation of one set ofdata could be& with one interpretive cap being defensive and even +at war, with theother.

Scripture and nature are infallibleA theology and science are not.

Gods 2ord Gods 2orks

nterpretation Scripture ;ature

%evelation Theology Science

34ampleD =ntil the tie of opernicus (*764) and Galileo (*L6)& virtuallyeveryone assued the earth was a stationary body around which all the otherheavenly bodies revolved daily. Scripture sees to teach the iovability ofthe earth (Csal O4D*A OLD*). 3oshua *D*4 says the sun stood still during the

battle in the valley of owever& a growing body of physical evidencedeonstrated that a atheatically and physically far sipler e!planation ofthe astronoical observations entailed revolution of the earth and the otherplanets around the sun./ (Crof. Navis Young& alvin ollege& 3nrichment5o#rnal& 'all *)

Me understand today that& in light of evidence fro the +book of nature&, the scripturete!ts in Galileo,s era were not interpreted with +frae of reference, in ind (i.e.& thesurface of the earth) fro which it looks like the sun is the obHect that is oving.;either was there consideration of the fact that poetic passages should beinterpreted less literally than the ore didactic teaching passages in Scripture.

=ltiately Scripture and nature& God,s Mord and his works& will not contradictone another.

>owever& the sae cannot be said about +theology, and +science., Both areprone to errors because of the huan factor. +


6/45

God is in heaven, and yo# are on earth,so let yo#r words !e few.

(3cclesiastes 6:&!)

#eanwhile we +doubt our doubts, and give apparent contradictions tie to

resolve without abandoning our faith.

Christianity and the Advancement of the Sciences

hristianity has& in fact& been at the forefront of scientific discovery throughouthistoryD

ohannes !epler "#$%#'()*E'ather of #odern e felt e!uberant and fancied that he had been given a orsel of heavenlyknowledge that had& up until now& been denied to an. +- feel carried awayand possessed by an unutterable rapture over the divine spectacle of theheavenly harony.,/

+o,ert -oyle "#'.%'/#*E'ather of #odern heistry

The vastness& beauty& orderliness& of the heavenly bodiesA the e!cellentstructure of anials and plantsA and the other phenoena of nature Hustlyinduce an intelligent and unpreHudiced observer to conclude a supreely

powerful& Hust& and good author./

Isaac Ne0ton "#'1.%.%*E'ather of #odern Chysics?alculus

This ost beautiful syste of the sun& planets and coets could onlyproceed fro the counsel and doinion of an intelligent and powerful Being./

2ichael Faraday "#%/#'%*EChysicist and heist

Speculations2/ he asked with astonishent. - have none. - a resting oncertainties. - know who - have believed& and a persuaded that >e is ableto keep that which - have coitted unto >i against that day5/

Sam4el F5 -5 2orse "#%/#%.*E-nventor and Cainter

#ore than once& and whenever - could not see y way clearly& - knelt downand prayed to God for light and understanding9. - have ade a valuableapplication of electricity not because - was superior to other en but solelybecause God& who eant it for ankind& ust reveal it to soeone and >ewas pleased to reveal it to e./

6ord !elvin "7illiam Thomson* "#3.1/)%*E:ngineer& #atheatician&

-nventor& Chysicist

7


7/45

No not be afraid of being free0thinkers. -f you think strongly enough you willbe forced by science to the belief in God& which is the foundation of all@eligion. You will find science not antagonistic& but helpful to @eligion./

ames Cler8 2a90ell "#3(#%/*EChysicist

God& who has created an in Thine own iage& and ade hi a living soulthat he ight seek after Thee and have doinion over thy creatures& teach usto study the works of Thy hands that we ay subdue the earth to our use& andstrengthen our reason for Thy serviceA and so to receive Thy blessed Mord&that we ay believe on >i who Thou has sent to give us the knowledge ofsalvation and the reission of our sins.


8/45

7hy Did Scientific Investi;ation Flo4rish Historically 0ithin theConte9t of a Christian 7orldvie0?

@ather than contradicting faith& is there soething in hristianity that actuallyfostered scientific investigation throughout the centuries2

@enowned physical cheist and evangelical believer Nr. >enry Schaefer ---& in hisbook ;cience and hristianity: onflict or oherenceis own purposes. -nthis way science was liberated fro ays that >ivide the 2orld(Qondervan&**)D

Me think that& since God is the author both of his Mord the Bible and of theuniverse& there ust ultiately be harony between correct interpretation of

J


9/45

the biblical data and correct interpretation of the scientific data. ndeed, it wasthe conviction that there was a creative intelligence !ehind the #niverse andthe laws of nat#re that gave the prime stim#l#s and moment#m to the modernscientific "#est to #nderstand nat#re and its laws in the si4teenth andseventeenth cent#ries.

7hat a,o4t the Islamic 7orldvie0 and its +elationship to ScientificAdvance?

-n the 3anuary *4 edition of The 3conomist& an article entitled The @oad to@enewal/ begins by docuenting the following statisticsD

The sleep has been long and deep. -n 7& >arvard =niversity producedore scientific papers than *J


10/45

-nstead of either demoniingor deifyingscience& respect it for what it is& be in awe ofthe wonders of the created order& and stay Biblically focused and huble.

How do we avoid demonizing science?

o


11/45

oniscient& all0knowing. Science would need to be able to analy$e all ofreality fro at least one diension outside of that which God could potentiallye!ist if it is to conclusively disprove his e!istence.

o Two of the ost ground0breaking scientific theories in the history of

science eerged during the thcenturyD

*. The Theory of %elativity. ?#ant#m Theory

*. The Theory of %elativityis based on the scientific& physicalobservation ade over a century ago that the speed of light(4& kiloeters per second) always easures the saeno atter what reference frae you easure it fro. Theiplications of that lead to :instein,s space0tie curvature

and the reality that the closer to the speed of light you travelthe ore tie slows and space contracts.

-f one twin travels to a nearby star and back at nearly thespeed of light for years (earth tie) and the other twinstays on earth& the twin on earth will have aged yearsbut the twin who left will have only aged one or two years.

This would be a peranent age difference and has beenverified e!perientally with +twin clocks.,


12/45

o -n the words of physicist @oger 3ones (Physics for the %est of @s)who

teaches at y ala ater& the =niversity of #innesotaD

8uantu theory clais that science can provide no pictures of theinner workings of nature . . . ;ot only are we blind to the workings of

nature& but even our brief glipses are of no obHective& independentreality but of a subHective& observer0deterined world./

o -t would see as if the Theory of @elativity puts a ceiling above us at

the tie?space threshold and that 8uantu Theory puts a floor underus& blinding us to the inner workings of nature. -n other wordsD

o Science cannot be oniscient. There are no grounds upon which we

should be tepted to deify it. Science& by its very nature& does notpossess the necessary tools to +disprove, God.

7hat A,o4t 2iracles? Are They Not Scientifically Impossi,le?

Science is only e1uipped to test for natural causes and so cannot be e!pectedto e!plain iracles& or eliinate the.

Fne of the cutting edges of scientific e!ploration today isD

Gravitational 'orce

:lectroagnetic 'orce

Strong ;uclear 'orce

Meak ;uclear 'orce

The 1uest is to find the unifying theory of all four of the fundaental forces insuch a way that e!plains all the other laws of nature. :instein needed fourdiensions (three space and one tie) to solve the relativity e1uations& but anarea of atheatics called String Theory re1uires at least eleven diensionsto solve the e1uations. ugh @oss& Aeyond the osmosD

The rearkable advance of research reveals a God who lives andoperates in the e1uivalent of at least eleven diensions of space andtie. Such e!tra0diensional capacities are ore than ade1uate to

**


13/45

resolve the doctrinal conflicts and parado!ical issues that have dividedthe church and perple!ed both believers and unbelievers for centuries./

Concl4sion

3esus& God,s Son& entered the confines of tie and three0diensional spacein order to reach us. -f - could suari$e the entire Bible in one sentence& itwould be thisD The God who created us has acted to rescue us./ The deathand resurrection of 3esus and the subse1uently powerful outpouring of the>oly Spirit& which is continuing to this day& is the tangibly real story that ustalways define our lives.

Science has not changed the fact that all have sinned and coe short of the

glory of God/ (@oans 4D4). Science cannot disprove God. ;either canscience reedy the pathology of the huan heart or address the issues ofultiate eaning.

Fnly soething +other&, soething +super0natural&, soething +beyond nature,

can do thatEthe death of 3esus in our place& paying for our sinA and hisresurrection fro the dead& securing victory over death and evil. The God ofthe cosos cae to be the Iord and Savior of our lives& redefining life,spurpose and releasing our potential.

South e is also apersonal and loving God who cares for each creature (so the nae+father, is indeed appropriate)A

4. God,s nature is revealed ost perfectly in the life and teachings of3esus of ;a$areth& as recorded in the ;ew Testaent of the Bible.3esus was sent by God to reveal the divine nature& suari$ed in+God is IoveA,

6. God has an active presence in the world that still touches the lives ofthe faithful today.

*


14/45

+IINS AND C+EATIN:Does Science Contradict enesis?

___________________________________________________________________

Fne of the ost controversial areas of the faith?science dialog is a perceivedconflict between conteporary scientific discoveries and a Biblicalunderstanding of the Genesis account of creation. This session will ake acase for the necessity of a reator and overview the three proinentinterpretations of Genesis * in the evangelical world as they relate to scientificdiscoveries.

___________________________________________________________________

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.(Genesis 1:1)

The first assertion of Scripture is that the world as we know it is neither a istake nora cosic accident. God is the creator and originator.

is creative capacity.

o Fur huan creativity is one of several e!pressions of the fact that we

have been created in the iage of God.

o i resting on theseventh day& >is creative work continues on to this day through thework of redeption (>is rescuing and restoring of what >e hascreated)D

Therefore if anyone is in hrist, he is a new creationCthe old has gone, the new has comeD

(& orinthians 6:1/)

o Soeday& God,s ongoing creative work will e!tend again to all of

creationD

Then saw a new heaven and a new earth,for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away,

and there was no longer any sea.(%evelation &1:1)

+Theis, is the worldview built on the preise that God is the creator of all thate!ists and lives. is creation.

*4


15/45

+Scientis&, on the other hand& is the worldview that builds on the preise that

all there is can be e!plained by natural processes& accidental +cause andeffect, outcoes with no divine +initial, cause.

o Scientis uses science& but is not to be confused with science.

o Scientis is a philosophical worldview that involves non0theistic

assuptions that cannot be proven. -n fact& when all of the data ise!ained& scientis re1uires ore faith than theis.

Mhen :instein was developing his theories of general and specific relativity a

century ago& the scientific counity believed in the +steady state, nature ofthe universeEthat the cosos had no beginning and presuably no end.>owever& to :instein,s surprise& his field e1uations for general relativityindicated a beginning point to the universe& which he found theologically

unsettling and scientifically unpopular.

o -n order to counter this& :instein arbitrarily added an anti0gravity ter

(the cosological constant) to one side of the relativity e1uations inorder to ake the predict what he wantedEa steady state universe.This was scientis over science.

o :instein later reoved the ter and called its insertion the +greatest

blunder, of his scientific career.

o

Today it is largely un1uestioned in the scientific counity that& in spiteof the theistic iplications and unanswered +how, 1uestions& ouruniverse does have a specific starting point. >ere we find soe initialcoon ground between science as it presently stands and Genesis*D*.

Creation and the Trinity

The first verse of Genesis * identifies +God, as the intentional creator of theheavens and the earth& the ultiate +first cause.,

The second verse of Genesis * references the >oly Spirit as hovering overour initially dark and forless planetD

Bow the earth was formless and empty,darkness was over the s#rface of the deep,

and the Sirit of Godwas hoveringover the waters.(Genesis 1:&)

-n the third verse of Genesis * there is reference to +wordKEGod spoke theword and creative activity resulted.

*6


16/45

End God said, 8et there !e light, and there was light.(Genesis 1:0)

o The +word, of creation& however& takes on specific identity in the ;ew

Testaent by virtue of the incarnation of hrist.

n the !eginning was the 2ord, and the 2ord was with God, and the2ord was God. Fe was with God in the !eginning. !hro"gh him a##things were made$ witho"t him nothing was made that has beenmade. . . . End the 2ord *5es#s+ !ecame flesh and made his dwelling

among #s. (5ohn 1:10, 1a)

Fe *5es#s+ is the image of the invisi!le God, the first!orn over allcreation. %or by him a## things were created: things in heaven and on

earth, visi!le and invisi!le, whether thrones or powers or r#lers ora#thoritiesC a## things were created by him and for him. Fe is !efore

all things, and in him a## things ho#d together. (olossians 1:161/)

n these last days, he *God+ has spoken to #s !y his ;on *5es#s+,whom he appointed heir of all things, and thro"gh whom he madethe "niverse. The ;on is the radiance of Gods glory and the e4act

representation of his !eing, s"staining a## things by hisowerf"# word. (Fe!rews 1:&0a)

The interplay of 'ather& Son and >oly Spirit in the creation eventdeonstrates the all0encopassing investent that God has ade in >is

creation& Hust as >e later does in the redeption of creationD

ay the graceof the &ord 'es"s hrist,and the #oveof God, and the fe##owshiof the Ho#y Sirit

!e with yo# all.(& orinthians 10:1)

Because we are created by God we are not a istake& and we are notabandoned. -t is as if huan beings carry a sign hung around their necksD

o This redefines how we view ourselves& how we treat others and how we

ake oral decisions.

o -f& on the other hand& we are Hust cosic accidents& we are not only

unredeeable but we have no definable worth independent of either theutilitarian social standards or the huan preHudices of the aHority. Thisakes us little ore than victis.

*7


17/45

Fine T4nin; Evidence for a Creator

an science either prove or disprove that God created the universe2 ;o& sciencedoes not have the tools to ake such a deterination. >owever& the evidence leavesno other realistic alternatives. -n his book& ;cience and hristianity: onflict or

oherence(*4)& physical cheist >enry Schaefer writesD

Science is priarily concerned with facts& not otive& and thus a copletescientific description of the creation does not necessarily rule out aprovidential account at the sae tie. Millia Caley,s faous designarguent suggests that if you are taking a walk in the woods and find a watchon the path& you should not conclude that the watch Hust assebled itselfEdespite the fact that we can take the watch apart& look at every single part andcopletely understand how it works. Me look at the watch on the path andprudently conclude that it was designed by soe higher intelligence./

The world0faed British theoretical physicist Stephen >awking e!pressed it

this way (E Arief Fistory of Time& p. *7)D

The laws of science as we know the at present& contain any fundaentalnubers& like the si$e of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of theasses of the proton and the electron.... The rearkable fact is that thevalues of these nubers see to have been very finely adHusted to akepossible the developent of life./

Fne illustration of this is the nuclear fusion fueling the heart of our sun,s

furnace. The process involves two deuteriu nuclei (a deuteriu nucleus hasone proton and one neutron) fusing to for one heliu nucleus (two protonsand two neutrons). >owever& the ass of the heliu nucleus is OO.4 percentof the ass of the two deuteriu nuclei.


18/45

-n his book&E ase Egainst Eccident and ;elf7rganiation& Nean Fveran

e!aines soe of these constants and their necessarily precise relationshipsto one another. >ere are Hust a few of anyD

o -f the strong nuclear force were only percent stronger& two protons

could bind despite their electrically charged repulsions& and...theuniverse would consist ainly of heliu and very little hydrogen.>ydrogen& of course& was necessary for the foration of the sun andthe foration of li1uefied water& both necessary for the foration oflife.... < percent decrease in the strength of this force& on the otherhand& would render unstable certain of the heavy eleents which areprere1uisites for life./

o The strength of the force of gravity precisely atches the strength of

the electroagnetic force to allow for the foration of a star such as

the sun.... -f the electroagnetic force were only slightly stronger& allstars would be red and too cold for the eergence of life. -f the force ofelectroagnetis were slightly weaker& all stars would be e!treelyhot blue giants which would burn out before life could eerge fro anyplanet orbiting a star./

o 'or the e!istence of life& the nuber of electrons ust be eticulously

balanced to an accuracy of one part in *4Jwith the nuber of protons.Mithout this balance the force of gravity which was essential to theforation of stars and planets would have been overwheled by theelectroagnetic force./

o The electroagnetic force binds protons and electrons in atos. ere are Hust a few of those paraetersD

o Carent star distance fro the center of the gala!y

-f fartherD 1uantity of heavy eleents would be insufficient toake rocky planets.

-f closerD stellar density and radiation would be too great.

*J


19/45

o Surface gravity

-f strongerD atosphere would retain too uch aonia andethane.

-f weakerD planet,s atosphere would lose too uch water.

o

o Gravitational interaction with a oon

-f greaterD tidal effects on the oceans& atosphere& and rotationalperiod would be too severe.

-f lessD orbital obli1uity changes would cause cliaticinstabilities.

o #agnetic field

-f strongerD electroagnetic stors would be too severe. -f weakerD there would be inade1uate protection fro hard stellar

radiation.

o Thickness of crust

-f thickerD too uch o!ygen would be transferred fro theatosphere to the crust.

-f thinnerD volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.

o Seisic activity

-f greaterD too any life0fors would be destroyed. -f lessD nutrients on ocean floors would not be recycled to the

continents through tectonic uplift.

You have a better chance of winning the alifornia lottery *6 consecutiveties where you purchase Hust one ticket each tie than of getting a huan0life0supporting planet or oon via naturalistic eans5/ (@oss& EnthropicPrinciple vs Pre!iotic Principle& @easons.org& Nec. *4& *)

The astronoer and atheatician 'red >oyle (abridge =niversity)& an

atheist& calculated the odds of & en$yes& each perforing specific tasksnecessary to for a single bacteriu like :. coli& to be one in * 6&. >e oncewroteD

< coon sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect hasonkeyed with physics& as well as with cheistry and biology& and that thereare no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The nubers onecalculates fro the facts see to e so overwheling as to put thisconclusion alost beyond 1uestion./

Biocheist& geneticist and agnostic #ichael Nenton& sus it up well in his

book 3vol#tion: E Theory in risis:

*


20/45

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by olecular biology& weust agnify a cell by a thousand illion ties until it is kiloeters indiaeter and resebles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city likeIondon or ;ew York. Mhat we would then see would be an obHect ofunparalleled cople!ity and adaptive design.

Fn the surface of the cell we would see illions of openings& like the portholes of a vast space ship& opening and closing to allow a continual strea ofaterials to flow in and out. -f we were to enter one of these openings wewould find ourselves in a world of supree technology and bewilderingcople!ity.... -t is the sheer universality of perfection& the fact that everywherewe look& to whatever depth we look& we find an elegance and ingenuity of anabsolutely transcending 1uality& which so itigates against the idea of chance.

-s it really credible that rando processes could have constructed a reality&the sallest eleent of whichEa functional protein or geneEis cople!

beyond our own creative capacities& a reality which is the very antithesis ofchance& which e!cels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence ofan2/

Fr& as astronoer @obert 3astrow& another agnostic& puts it rather poetically in

his book& God and the Estronomers&

'or the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason& the storyends like a bad drea. >e has scaled the ountains of ignoranceA he is aboutto con1uer the highest peakA as he pulls hiself over the final rock& he is

greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries./

7hat a,o4t enesis #?

The 1uestion as to how God created& and therefore how to understand&

Genesis *& is a subHect of significant and current debate within the evangelicalcounity. This is probably where the greatest perceived conflict betweenfaith and science e!ists.

o Scientific evidence consistently dates the age of the universe at *4.JLbillion years old and the age of the earth at 6.7J billion years old. TheaHority of scientists also believe that life on earth evolved over vastaounts of tie fro a +prebiotic soup, to the abundance of life foundon the planet today& including huan beings.

o ;uerous 1uestions are raisedD Noes this contradict Genesis *2 -s

Genesis * eant to be read as a scientific docuent2 -s Genesis *historic or poetic2


21/45

o -t ay be helpful to recall that Scripture and nature are infallible& but

our huan interpretations of the are not. Fur conclusions froScripture ay be wrong (as in the tie of Galileo) or science,sconclusions fro nature ay be wrong (they are constantly under

revision as new discoveries eerge).

o -t is& therefore& wise not to reHect our faith or give up on the possibility of

a relationship with hrist& Hust because we cannot fully reconcileperceived (and possibly inaccurate) conflicts between Genesis * andscience.

-n their short book hristian Perspectives on 7rigins& =.S.


22/45

Mith that overview& let us look a little ore deeply at each of these three views.:ach has its challenges. Mhat is ;FT in 1uestion with any of their proponents isthat (*) God createdand that () the ;cript#res are inspired.

o o4n; Earth Creationism has the aHority of scientific evidence

against it at face value& but Y: believe that this is the siplest andplainest understanding of the Genesis account. They believe that asscience keeps changing the evidence for an earth as young as L&years old will eventually prevail.

This view was first populari$ed by


23/45

and shifts in water asses would account for rapid sedientarylayering of the earth,s surface and the instant fossili$ation ofplants and anials.

('or ore& see The Bew reationism: A#ilding ;cientific Theory on a Ai!lical

Ho#ndation by Caul Garner& :vangelical Cress& O.)

o ld Earth Creationism understands +yo, (the >ebrew word for +day,)

to ean +age, or +era, and not necessarily a 60hour solar day.

The sun and oon do not appear until the 6thcreation +day.,


24/45

o Evol4tionary Creationism does not view Genesis * as historic& but as

a genre of ancient near0eastern literature written for the purpose ofcounicating to non0scientifically literate -sraelites the truth aboutGod and huanity in contrast to the pagan yths that would havesurrounded the. The nuber J was coonly used in a sybolic

way to deonstrate copleteness and the Genesis * account waswritten with a chiastic& poetic structureD

Form F4llness

Day # Iight (day) U Sun Day 1Narkness (night) U #oon

Day . Sea U 'ish Day $uan history had a beginning.

There is only one God& and >e is Yahweh.

God is personally and intiately involved in >is creation.

God considered the creation good.

4


25/45

God created everythingEincluding lifeEin the physical universe.

God brought everything into e!istence for >is own purposes.

>uans (and only huans) are created in God,s iage.

God created huans to live in loving relationship with >i and with each

other.

The first huans disobeyed God (sin)& destroying our relationship with God.

God punished huans for disbelieving and disobeying >i.

The rest of GenesisEindeed& the rest of the BibleEreveals God,s great desire

for fellowship with huans to be restored.

(Badger and Tenneson& hristian Perspectives on 7rigins)

THE ASSE2-6IES F D AND THE DCT+INE F C+EATIN(opiled by Nr. :dgar IeeA presented to the General Cresbytery


26/45


27/45

o Genesis *D* tells of the original creation of the earth. >ow long ago

this ay have been no one knows.../ (ST& -& *J0*). Millias then goeson to advance Scofield,s view of the KGap Theory.K

The first creative act refers to the dateless past& and givesscope for all the supposed geologic ages. 9 the earth hadundergone a cataclysic change as the result of a divineHudgent9/ (*).

The *OJJ Cosition Caper follows the S'T in affiring God as reator but& likethe S'T& it does not support any one creation theory.

Stanley #. >orton& ed. ;ystematic Theology: E Pentecostal Perspective(GC>?Iogion& *OO6) does include a study of the doctrine of creation (hapter

J The reation of the =niverse and >uankind&/ pp. *7074).

>orton discusses four odels (theories) of creation held by evangelicalhristians and finds difficulties associated with each of the (all currentattepts to haroni$e the Bible and science are plagued with difficulties/"44%)D

*. Theistic evolutionEwhich is not discussed because its proponentsbasically accept everything secular evolution proposes with the provisothat God was superintending the whole process/ (4)

. The gap theory& also called the ruin?reconstruction theory

4. 'iat creationis& also called the young0earth theory

6. Crogressive creationis& also called the age0day theory

onclusionD 9it would be helpful if proponents of all views would recogni$e that theScriptures siply do not speak in support of their views with the degree of specificitythey would like/ (46).

L


28/45

Assem,lies of od Position Paper on Creation"adopted A4;4st .)##* 0005a;5or;

(SelectedD final two sections)

The Reality of Creation

Genesis *V4 accurately counicates God,s creation of the heavens and the earth.=sing language that appears to eploy both prose and poetry and that contains bothliteral and sybolic eleents& the story is a siple yet beautiful and copellingnarrative intended to speak to all huankind. The cople!ity of creation is such thathuans will never fully coprehend it. But the essage that God alone is reatorplainly has been counicated to all who& through the ages& hear and read theGenesis account.

Fur understanding of God as reator is rooted in a divine revelation of real eventsthat occurred in tie and space. #oreover& our understanding of God as @edeeeris rooted in the revelation of God,s dealings with -srael in history and in the historicalevents of the life& death& and resurrection of >is Son. Iikewise& the ;ew Testaenttreats the first e also reveals hiself in the general revelation of >is created

order. The heavens declare the glory of GodA the skies proclai the work of hishands. Nay after day they pour forth speechA night after night they display

J
http://www.ag.org/http://www.ag.org/


29/45

knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard/ (Csal*OD*V4).

=ltiately& then& when God,s Mord and God,s Mork are properly understood andtaught by reverent scholarship& there is no disunity. 'or since the creation of the

world God,s invisible 1ualitiesEhis eternal power and divine natureEhave beenclearly seen& being understood fro what has been ade& so that en are withoute!cuse/ (@oans *D). God has revealed hiself in such a way as to invite us intoan e!ploration of >is nature through both the Mord and >is Mork& the Bible andscientific e!ploration.

-n suary& we see that the Bible fro beginning to end identifies God as thereator. By faith we understand that the universe was fored at God,s coand&so that what is seen was not ade out of what was visible/ (>ebrews **D4). 'or hespoke& and it cae to beA he coanded& and it stood fir/ (Csal 44DO).

+ecent o4n; Earth Creationists Developments:httpD??www.answersingenesis.org?get0answers?topic?arguents0we0dont0use

Mhy should a hristian inistry aintain a list of arguents creationists shouldavoid2 is Mord. This eans using honest& intellectually sound arguents that arebased in Scripture& logic& and scientific research. Because there are so any goodarguents for a recent creation (which the Bible clearly teaches)& we have no needto grasp at strawsEarguents using 1uestionable logic and tenuous or no evidence.


30/45

O. @on Myatt has found uch archeological proof of the Bible.

Ar;4ments that sho4ld ,e avoided ",eca4se f4rther research is still neededBne0 research has invalidated aspects of itB or ,i,lical implications maydisco4nt it*

*. :volution is Hust a theory. (Theory/ has a stronger eaning in scientific fieldsthan in general usageA it is better to say that evolution is Hust a hypothesis orone odel to e!plain the untestable past.)

. #icroevolution is true but not acroevolution. (Ceople usually ean that wesee changes within a kind but not between kindsA however& the iportantdistinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the geneticinforation in an organis.)

4. There was a water vapor canopy surrounding earth before the 'lood.

6. #itochondrial :ve is only L years old.

7. The Gospel is in the stars.

L. The 3apanese trawler =#iyo ar# caught a dead plesiosaur near ;ewQealand. (Iater research showed it to be a basking shark.)

J. The earth,s a!is was vertical before the 'lood. (Genesis 1:1reveals seasonsdid e!ist prior to the 'lood.)

. Calu!y tracks prove that huans and dinosaurs co0e!isted.

O. Stars are closer than we are led to believe.

*.There was no rain before the 'lood. (Genesis &:KJ& a passage coonly

used to support this& is speaking of reation Meek& prior to the creation ofan. -t ay not be wise to assue this proHects into the future until the'lood.)

**. The speed of light has decreased over tie.

*.There are no transitional fors. (-t would be better to say there are nointerediates between two different kinds. Me find variant transitional fossilsfor anials within the sae kindEhorse to a horse for e!aple but that ise!pected in a biblical worldview.)

Common misconceptionsmis4nderstandin;s

:arth,s division in the days of Celeg (Genesis 1':&6) refers to catastrophicsplitting of the continents. (>ow could the ountains of


31/45

#an could only live to * years as per Genesis J:0. (Then how could any

of ;oah,s descendants outlive * years& including


32/45

PE+SNHD AND ETHICS:7hat Can Science Not Do?

______________________________________________________________

The issue of what akes us distinctively huan and how we ake oral andethical decisions related to life& death and the use of technology lies outside thedoain of science itself. >ere faith becoes essential and infored pastoralcare is needed. This session will e!plore the iplications of the Biblicalunderstanding of huanness as it relates to ethical decision0aking in life andpastoral preparedness in the local church.

______________________________________________________________

(:ric ohen& n the ;hadow of Progress& )

:rwin Schrodinger& the id0thcentury scientist after who the ost iportante1uation in science is naed (The Shrodinger :1uationEdescribing 1uantuechanics wave functions)& wrote towards the end of his career (Bat#re and theGreeks,*O76)D

- a very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around e is verydeficient. -t gives us a lot of factual inforation& puts all of our e!perience in aagnificently consistent order& but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that isreally near to our heart& that really atters to us...it knows nothing of beautiful andugly& good or bad& God and eternity. Science soeties pretends to answer1uestions in these doains but the answers are very often so silly that we are notinclined to take the seriously./

There are three 4estions that science in and of itself cannot ans0er:

o Mhat akes us uni1uely huan2

o -s our ind?soul ore than our physical brain2

o Mhere does oral authority coe fro2

The inability of science to answer these 1uestions& however& does not leaveus without answers. >ere& where science cannot reach& faith needs to step into do the necessary work of defining huan identity& purpose and appropriateethical boundaries for huan behavior.

o :veryone believes soething& but not every belief syste provides a

sufficient +fraework, for addressing these +nonscientific, issues. -treally does atter what we believe5

o ;aturalis,s +survival of the fittest, is a woefully inade1uate fraework

for understanding or e!plaining love& beauty& honor& selflessness&devotion& purpose& self0control& spiritual hunger& and personal sacrifice.

o hristian faith& however& does provide such a fraework.

4*


33/45

A -i,lical Frame0or8

Then God said, 8et #s make man in o#r image, in o#r likeness, and let them r#leover the fish of the seas and the !irds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,

and over all the creat#res that move along the gro#nd.

;o God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created himC maleand female he created them.

(Genesis 1:&J, &/)

...the 8ord God formed the man from the d#st of the gro#nd and !reathed into hisnostrils the !reath of life, and the man !ecame a living !eing.

(Genesis &:/)

-t begins with the Genesis * assertion that God created man in his own imagecoupled with the Genesis assertion that God !reathed into his nostrils the !reathof life. -n other words& our +huanity, finds definition and significance relative to ourreator.

Me are not istakes or the products of rando biological chance.

;either are we erely physical beings (+dust,). Fur uni1ue personhood is

rooted in a spiritual center (!reathed...the !reath of lifewith the capacity tohave fellowship with& align with and reflect our reator (image of God).

Me are ore than Hust our brains.


34/45

survival. -n other words& spirituality is purely a function of brain cheistry&leaving us with the 1uestion& have we created God rather than God creatingus2/

o owever& this alone does not prove that brain cheistry is responsible

for generating spiritual e!periences. There is a significant differencebetween +response, and +generation.,

o There is also a logical contradiction inherent in these naturalistic

clais. -n the words of Ti Peller in his book& The %eason for GodD

-n the last part of Nawkin,s The God >el#sion he adits that since weare the product of natural selection& 0e cant completely tr4st o4ro0n senses.


35/45

(Psalm 109:101J)

uan IifeD e is both giver and sustainer of life./

Bioethicist Nr. Scott @ae& Biola =niversity& adds this critical insightD(**


36/45

o


37/45

proposition that there is a +gay gene, has been increasingly used to legitii$ehoose!uality as +natural, and even +noral., Mhat is the truth2

Before looking at the scientific evidence& we ust reeber our Biblical

fraework. >uans are fallen creatures subHect to defority and disease&which would include daage to the huan genoe according to what weknow now. There is uch scientific evidence for genetic dispositions towardsailents such as heart disease& diabetes& cancer& etc.& as well as entalillness and possibly even alcoholis& violent behavior and other behavioralabnoralities.

o 3ust because there ay be& in part& genetic causation& this does not in

and of itself ake sinful behavior +right., -t siply evidences ourfallenness and brokenness as huan beings& in need of a Savior.

o There is also uch evidence that genetic behavioral tendencies arealso greatly influenced by habits& environent and spiritualtransforation. >uan behavior is a product of both +nature, and+nurture.,

These kinds of genetic tendencies are not e1uivalent to the colorof your skin or si$e of your nose& which have nothing to do with+nurture., -t therefore cannot be asserted that hoose!ualidentity is a +huan rights, issue.

o eco0authored with @egent =niversity professor& #ark e!ate(-nterarsity Cress& ).

#ore recently Nr. 3ones authored the article Se!ual Frientations and

@easonD Fn the -plications of 'alse Beliefs about >oose!uality/ which wasdigitally published at www.christianethics.orgin 3anuary *.


38/45


39/45

in only seven cases (O. percent) was the second twin also gay& yet anotherstatistically insignificant result.

-n contrast to the hubris of those prone to aking ephatic pronounceents&what we do not yet know "scientifically% about the causation of se!ual

orientations dwarfs the bit that we are beginning to know.


40/45

Given these grave concerns& it is iperative that those who elect thisprocedure prayerfully seek godly and knowledgeable counsel& andengage edical professionals with copatible ethical standards. Medisapprove any procedure that results in the destruction of uniplantedebryos./

A,ortion(uan IifeD


41/45

type of horrors ay be visited upon cloned individuals or uponhuankind at large through such a process./

E4thanasiaE


42/45

The Environment and 7or8

This respect and care for created life is also the foundation for a hristian view ofcaring for the environent. Soeties referred to as the +reation #andate&, God

coissioned i and+turning the painter into the painting.,

o

-n spite of these non0theistic errors& however& true theis calls us toretake the cause of environentalis in a way that stewards God,screation but is not detriental to huan beings (which would beoutside of Biblical ethics).

The creation andate is also the theological basis for +work., Mork is not the result ofthe fall& but iplicit to the L thday of creation itselfEGenesis D*7D

The 8ord God took the man and p#t him in the Garden of 3dento wor it and tae care of it.

This is why #artin Iuther once saidD

The aid who sweeps her kitchen is doing the will of God Hust as uch asthe onk who praysEnot because she ay sing a hristian hyn as shesweeps& but because God loves clean floors./

2oral A,sol4tes or +elativism?

The Biblical fraework also has significant iplications for the source of oral

authority in the world. Theis would aintain that oral absolutes and accountabilityto our reator are universal. Scientis provides no reference frae for unifor

6*


43/45

orality. -n its place oral relativis has becoe the predoinant ethic in theseculari$ed& increasingly non0theistic Mestern world.

This is not to be confused with :instein,s theory of relativity& which has to do

with the fi!ed relationship between space and tie. 'ro Physics for the %estof @sby physicist @oger 3onesD

@ather than suggesting that everything is relative& :instein,s theorydeonstrates a deep and unchanging order that underlies naturalphenoena. :arly isconceptions about relativity propted :instein tosuggest a new naeEinvariance theoryEto describe the deep peranencebeneath the appearance of change. But +relativity, had caught on both thescientific and popular iagination& and it was too late& even for :instein& tochange the nae of his theory./

3ust as in the physical universe& however& Biblical theis aintains that thereis a +deep and unchanging order, in the oral universe as well. #oralrelativis aintains that there is no absolute truth. -n other words& what is truefor e ay not be true for you. Me becoe our own gods with a designerorality that fits our personal preferences or society,s preHudices.

o In the theistic 0orldvie0B it is o4r faith that informs o4r val4es5

-f oral relativis is true (as contradictory as that stateent is)& it raises twodifficult 1uestions for non0theistsD

o 7hy is it not consistently applied?

-n his book The %eason for God, pastor& author& and scholar TiPeller recounts his 1uestion and answer sessions following hisSunday servicesD

Fne of the ost fre1uent stateents - heard was that +:veryperson has to define right and wrong for hi0 or herself. - alwaysresponded to the speakers by asking& +-s there anyone in the worldright now doing things you believe they should stop doing no atter

what they personally believe about the correctness of theirbehavior2/ They would invariably say& +Yes& of course., Then - wouldask& +Noesn,t that ean that your dobelieve there is soe kind oforal reality that is +there, that is not defined by us& that ust beabided by regardless of what a person feels or thinks2,


44/45

e does not. This leads us to acrucial 1uestion. -f a preise (+There is no God,) leads to aconclusion you know isn,t true (+;apaling babies is culturallyrelative,) then why not change the premise


45/45

This truth both defines us and frees us& defining ethical oral authority and

copleting our own huanity for the glory of our reator.

Concl4sion

Theologian and scholar M. Bingha >unter (Ch.N. =niversity of

paths lecture series: faith & science.pdf

Documents