Doesn't Science Disprove
the Bible?
There is little question that entire volumes could be
filled in addressing this question and certainly there has
been more than a little conflict between the
"camps" of science and faith. Neither the
scriptural nor the scientific view of the universe is
complete in itself, despite the fact that each view
contributes an essential perspective on the complete reality.
Ideally, science and faith should be complementary despite
their different world views. For example:
Scriptural World View
Through the spectacles of studying scripture, we
Christians see the cosmos as creation; we see where it stands
in relationship to God the Creator, who is its originator,
preserver, governor and provider. Scripture teaches us that
creation points to God's existence and our responsibility.
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been
clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20 NIV)
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies
proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
In general, the Bible speaks to the "why" of the
universe more than it does to the "how."
Scientific World View
Through the lens of scientific investigation, natural
scientists are able to observe the internal affairs of the
material world -- its coherent properties, its lawful
behavior, and its authentic history. Science (by means of the
scientific method) attempts to determine how the universe
works. It is less concerned with the "why" of the
universe than the "how." In fact, many scientists
have an aversion to even considering that there may be a
"why" for the universe -- one of the true
blind-spots of science.
A classic example of this mind-set can be found in the
work of one of the 20th century's greatest scientists: Albert
Einstein. When Einstein first published his field theory he
introduced a cosmological "fudge factor" that would
get his equations to yield a static model for the universe.
(A static model allows for a universe that always was and
always will be.) But everything in his work pointed to an
expanding universe that had a beginning ... and it seemed
more than he was willing to believe. Therefore, Einstein
postulated a "cosmological constant" that would
allow for a static universe. By introducing this constant, he
could eliminate the inevitability of an ultimate beginning
and so a creator of that universe could be avoided. The price
Einstein was prepared to pay to avoid facing an origin for
the universe seems astonishing! In time, theoreticians found
that Einstein's static universe could not be kept static. The
observations of such men as de Sitter and Hubble pointed to
an expanding universe in direct opposition to Einstein's
theories. (What is curious is that the "science" of
that day was openly opposed to a universe with any kind of
"beginning" despite the evidence. One scientist of
the time, A. S. Eddington, declared that any origin
of the universe was "philosophically repugnant.")
Finally, Einstein gave grudging acceptance to "the
necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the
presence of a superior reasoning power." In 1931,
following the publication of Hubble's law of red shifts,
Einstein finally discarded the cosmological constant from his
field equations and conceded that its introduction was
"the greatest mistake of his life."
To be honest, this bias against a scriptural world-view
remains. The scientific community tends to treat any
researchers who allow for an active Creator as something less
than legitimate scientists. In many of our colleges and
universities, a scientist who teaches that God created the
universe, or who supports a designed creation, is unlikely to
ever receive tenure. By those standards, Isaac Newton would
be unemployable today. Perhaps the greatest scientist of all
time wrote the following in his Mathematica Principia :
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and
comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of
an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all
things, not as the soul of the world, but a Lord over all,
and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord
God, Universal Ruler." (Newton, 1686)
It is interesting that the two greatest mathematical geniuses in the past 500 years could come to the same
conclusion (one with enthusiasm and the other with grudging
acceptance): there is a creator!
We cannot truly believe that science is the enemy of the
Bible. It should be the ally of truth. We just need to
remember that science has limitations; limitations addressed
by the scriptures. There are questions that simply lie
outside the domain of natural science:
1. While natural science can fruitfully investigate
the formation of various structures within the physical
world, it is incapable of dealing with the ultimate
origin of the world's existence.
2. While natural science can fruitfully investigate
the behavior of the physical universe, it is incapable of
settling the fundamental question concerning its
governance.
Science gets into trouble when it strays beyond what it
can "know" and embraces an accidental universe.
More scientists need to take Isaac Newton's approach and
allow for a God that is "in" the universe and plays
an active role in governing that universe. What we
customarily call the "laws of nature" are really
our descriptions of the patterns of divine governance.
There is an important place for science that honors
scripture. We can be confident that the apparent conflicts
between science and scripture occur because of
misinterpretation of either or both. Since, of the two, the
scripture speaks with greater long-term clarity, until a
satisfactory resolution can be made, we must proceed with
confidence in the original interpretation of scripture (fully
aware that scripture has its sharpest focus on the
"why" of the universe). Resolution may not occur in
this generation, or even the next.
If science has its boundaries and limits of investigation,
we Christians, too, have our blind spots. We make the mistake
of believing that we don't need evidence to believe the
claims of the Bible. The scripture never calls for
"blind faith." Rather, "real faith" is
built upon real evidence ... often provided by God Himself.
Much of this evidence is of a historical nature -- invasions
of time and space by the eternal -- but it remains evidence
nevertheless (a discussion of the various forms of
"proof" are outside the scope of this essay). We
can also gain much from the investigations of science into
the structure of the physical universe. God's fingerprints
seem to be everywhere in His creation.
Please consider some biblical statements of cosmological
significance:
1. God existed before the universe. God exists totally
apart from the universe, and yet can be everywhere within
it. (Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16-17)
2. Time (for the universe) has a beginning. God's
existence and activity precede this created time. (II
Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2)
3. The Son of God, Jesus Christ, created the universe.
He has no beginning and was not created. (John 1:3,
Colossians 1:16-17)
4. God created the universe from that which cannot be
detected with the five human senses. (Hebrews 11:3)
5. After His resurrection, Jesus could pass through
walls in His physical body, an evidence of His
extra-dimensionality. (Luke 24:36-43, John 20:26-28)
6. Jesus, operating in His extra-dimensionality, can
do far more for us than would ever be possible if He was
confined to the dimensions of the universe. (John 14:12
& 16:5-7, Phil. 2:5-11)
7. God is very near, yet we cannot see Him, a further
evidence of His extra-dimensionality. (Exodus 33:20,
Deuteronomy 30:11-14, John 6:46)
8. God designed the universe in such a way that it
would support human beings. (Genesis 1 &2, Nehemiah
9:6, Job 38, Psalm 8:3, Isaiah 45:18)
So, does science disprove the Bible? We don't believe it
can. Instead, we believe that current research will
ultimately continue to support the Bible's claims. When most
men believed that the world sat upon the back of a giant
turtle, the scriptures taught that God created a universe
from "absolutely nothing" -- a description of our
origins that is not too dissimilar from a position now being
embraced by such current scientists as Stephen Hawking in his
book, A Brief History of Time.
The Psalmist sang "The heavens declare the
glory of God, the vault of heaven proclaims His handiwork,"
but we suspect that few have sung, "the expanding
universe and the wonders of quantum mechanics proclaim His
handiwork." The sentiment, however, is precisely the
same. Both scripture and science should be allowed to lead us
to greater levels of wonder and praise as we consider His
divine works. If you have any further questions or need
clarification, be sure to write us!
Back to Minister's Page
Back
to Organized
Religion is a Mess
Back
to Is God for Real
Return
to Homepage
Christ's Church of Deer Park
www.ccdp.org
