 |
38th Street Church of Christ 3904 38th Street NW Canton, Ohio 44718 330-492-5523 Fax: 330-493-7119 |
“Science And The Bible: |
  |
I. Introduction.
A. In the early – 1950’s, Florida Christian College was just a
small school with a relatively young faculty. But, what the
instructors lacked in experience, they more than made up
for in optimism, and youthful idealism.1. The necessary maturity and wisdom in academic
leadership was supplied by the dean of the college,
a man named A.W. Dicus.2. Dicus had already had a distinguished career in
education. For a number of years, he’d been the
chairman of the physics department at Tennessee
Tech University. When he came to Florida
Christian, he was recognized as one of the leading
physics teachers in the nation.3. Dicus’ colleagues soon learned he was more than a
scientist and teacher. They found in him a man of
deep faith and spiritual maturity. And, he was also
both a poet, and songwriter.B. Eight years before Dicus’ death, a song for which he wrote
both the words and music was published. Its popularity
was immediate. The song expressed the exuberant, living
faith of the scientist-composer. It begins this way:“There is beyond the azure blue, a God, concealed from
human sight, He tinted skies with heavenly hue and framed
the worlds with His great might.”C. Song: “Our God, He Is Alive” (#23).
D. What this distinguished man of science wrote, and set to
music, reflected what the Psalmist says in Psalm 33:6-9,
written long, long before.E. The question is often asked: “Is the Bible scientifically
accurate?” And, one response might be: “The scientific
accuracy of the Bible is not an issue, since the Bible is not
a scientific textbook” (nor, does it claim to be.)1. That’s true. The Bible is not, has never been,
intended as a textbook of science. But, it’s also
true that the Bible does make statements that are
scientific in nature. It presents observations that
are relevant to scientific studies of the world, the
universe, all of physical creation.2. So, the question then becomes, where such
statements do appear in the scriptures, and where
such statements are correctly interpreted, do they
harmonize with the known facts relating to the
physical world, and the space around it?3. Is there harmony, or conflict, between science and
the Bible?F. Let us begin to answer this question with a statement, the
premise upon which we will base all of our observations:
there is no discrepancy – there is no conflict – between true
science and the scriptures.II. Science: Past And Present.
A. From about A.D. 400-1500, theology (the study of religion,
that produces a body of religious thought) was dominant in
western Europe. This takes in the historical periods we call
the “Dark Ages” and “Middle Ages.”1. Only gradually, first in southern Europe
(specifically Italy), did secular (worldly) concerns,
and secular interests, begin to become of prime
importance (and that only from the mid-12th
century on).2. The culmination of this transition came with the
“Renaissance” (“re-birth”) and the emphasis, not
only on the secular, but on classical (ancient Greek
and Roman) cultures.B. In the theologically-dominated periods, such subjects as the
creation were not controversial. There was a supreme,
sovereign creator-God. Anyone who questioned this, or
any other, matters related to the scriptures was branded a
“heretic” and, often, tried for their heresy by tribunals of
the dominant religious institution, the Roman Catholic
Church.1. Men like Galileo and Copernicus (both pioneers in
the science of astronomy) ran up against the barrier
of theology in their work as scientists.2. Because newer ideas were almost automatically
rejected, the concept of conflict between science
and “religion” developed, and dominated, peoples’
thinking.C. To those who had an interest in science, it represented a
search for truth. And, scientists came to be seen as more
objective than theologians – those who simply repeated
“church” teachings, no matter how dogmatic, or wrong,
they might be. The religious leaders were often seen as the
stumbling blocks to scientific investigation.D. The Renaissance, and the religious revolution called the
Protestant Reformation (in the 16th century) changed
perceptions, in both religion and science.
1. Science was now re-classified as “naturalism”,
making it difficult, if not impossible to even
recognize what could be called the “supernatural.”2. Now science took on the task of finding natural
explanations (not necessarily truth) that excluded
the supernatural, and the God-Creator.E. Science became the answer to humanity’s problems,
especially for a large group of people who found no
personally satisfactory answers in dogmatic religious
doctrines, and teachings. The attitude shifted to the point
of believing that the more people discover about the natural
(physical) world, about the natural environment, about the
true origins of these and the life they sustain, the more
mankind will “progress.” Ironically, the very book that so
many now disparaged and disdained revealed their
weakness: “Professing to be wise, they became fools”
(Romans 1:22).F. An important person in the perceived conflict between
science and the Bible is Charles Darwin, one of the
founders of modern thinking on evolution. In his own
denial of biblical truth, Darwin turned to a naturalistic
explanation – in fact, a theoretical explanation – of life
and its origins and development.1. If there is no Creator, then only a naturalistic
explanation for mankind’s origins is possible.2. The naturalistic explanations – no matter how
theoretical, flawed, or even irrational, become
preferable for scientifically enlightened people.
Preferable over the obvious “myth” of the
supernatural concept of creation.G. By the mid-19th century, science was seen as superior,
and, supreme, to theology, and theological explanations
of many things in the world. In fact, science would be
mankind’s “salvation” and, certainly, the key to progress,
and to the ultimate development of a utopian society.1. The perceived conflict, between science and the
Bible saw one side as naturalistic and rational, and
the other as supernatural and irrational. One view
was based upon reason and thought, the other relied
upon dogma and emotion.2. If the Bible had any connection with science, it was
long since outdated. The Bible may have sufficed
for past generations, but it was not relevant in this
present, scientifically-advanced, age.III. The Bible – Truth For Today.
A. Critics ridiculed the scriptures because of what were seen
as “unscientific” statements contained in them. The
question became: “Which will you accept – science or
religion?” The clear implication of such a query is that
one must, of necessity, make a choice. As science and the
Bible are, fundamentally, opposed to one another, one
could not reasonably defend both as the basis for beliefs.B. Even today, those who hold science as the key to progress,
and the future, see it as developing all the answers, all the
“truth”, people need. So, we come to the real core of the
debate, and the alleged conflict: science seeks truth and
conclusions through a tested methodology of
experimentation. The Bible proclaims truth as an
acceptance of what God has communicated to mankind.1. In fact, science is limited in that it can tell us what
something is, but not tell us why it is what it is.
The “why” becomes theoretical.
2. Those who accept the Bible as God’s written word
have confidence in the “why” answers. Faith in the
power, and goodness, of God gives us “why.”C. If the Bible were a textbook of science, it would have to be
constantly revised and updated, so as to avoid
obsolescence, as new discoveries are made.1. Science serves the purpose of developing
knowledge of all the facts, the laws, and the
processes of nature. It is an objective study of the
world around us. But, science cannot give us the
definitive answers regarding humanity, the future,
our fate. It’s the Bible that tells people who, and
what, they are. It’s the Bible that reveals to us our
most basic needs. It’s the Bible that tells us how to
become a complete person – physically and
spiritually.2. The Bible, as God’s word, is free from the necessity
for constant change, or correction.D. When science became predominate in peoples’ thinking, it
was suggested that the Bible should be corrected, to
conform to current scientific conclusions. Ironically, had
people so-tampered with the scriptures, it would ultimately
have been found that many of the “undisputed facts” of one
generation were found to be false by succeeding
generations.1. The Bible and true science are not in conflict, but in
harmony.2. If science has the real truth for mankind, then we’ve
nothing to lose as far as life and destiny are
concerned. We live, we die – just like all animals.3. If, however, the Bible is correct, we have
everything to lose if its truths are not believed,
and applied in our lives.E. The truly remarkable thing is not how “unscientific” the
Bible is, but, rather, how much modern science has verified
what the Bible proclaimed centuries, even millennia, ago.
We can be a Christian and believe in the ability of science
to answer certain questions. They do not conflict, or
contradict, each other.IV. Conclusion.
A. God made all things in creation to encourage us to
remember Him through His wonderful works. Each day
these works tell us of the glory of God, and the
“. . . firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).B. We are never without evidence of God (Romans 1:20).
The Bible is full of scientific statements – not one of which
has, thus far, been proven wrong.