Part Four: Science
1. “All that exists is composed of material entities.”
2. “In contrast to Christian theology, science is the true interpretation of reality because its hypothesis and theories can be tested.”
3. “Evolution is a testable model but Christianity’s belief that God created the universe and Earth cannot be tested and therefore not verifiable.”
4. “How can Christians believe in Genesis 1 (the “days of creation”) when it is contradicted by current scientific evidence?”
1. “All that exists is composed of material entities.”
-
Where did all of these “entities” come from? (Most likely, they will assert that it ultimately came from the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the effect of something and needs a cause. What or who created the Big Bang? (You may claim that science cannot answer this question.) Whatever (or whoever) created the Big Bang must exist outside of our universe, and is perhaps even eternal.
-
How did the origin of life begin? (Most likely, they will discuss some primordial “soup” where life was created.) However, how can we get “life” from “non-life?” If non-life cannot create life then how can we explain “life’s origin?” Does this not suggest something “living” is the cause of the origin of life in our universe?
-
Would you please explain how “materialism” (the belief that all that exists is composed of “material” entities) can explain and account for complex things such as human personality, consciousness, creativity, behaviorism, depravity, and spirituality?
-
If Jesus resurrected from the dead, then for this one instance, the universe was not closed. If Jesus resurrected from the dead, then all that exist is not composed of material entities.
(top)
2. “In contrast to Christian theology, science is the true interpretation of reality because its hypothesis and theories can be tested.”
-
John Polkinghorne suggests, however, that science and Christian theology have similar methodologies in their approach to interpreting reality and truth. Both science (light as wave and particle) and theology (Jesus’ death and resurrection) have moments of radical revision in which new phenomena lead to new insights.
-
Both science (Bohr’s theory of the hydrogen atom) and theology (discussing the nature of Jesus is purely human categories) have periods of confusion in which old and new ideas stand side by side in unresolved tension.
-
Both science (modern quantum theory) and theology (Trinity at Nicea and Constantinople, Christology at Chalcedon) reach a new synthesis and understanding in which a theory is revealed.
-
Both science (measurement problem in quantum theory) and theology (hypostatic union: kenosis, inspiration, degree) continue to wrestle with unsolved problems.
-
It is important to note that science itself has had its own share of paradigm shifts throughout its long history (as noted above).
(top)
3. “Evolution is a testable model but Christianity’s belief that God created the universe and Earth cannot be tested and therefore not verifiable.”
-
Some would contend that evolution is not testable and not verifiable because its present findings are not reliable due to its “dating” methodologies (e.g., carbon dating), problematic interpretations (e.g., the majority of the fossil record for “hominids” consist of small pieces and portions rather than full and complete fossils), and lack of information (a universal flood would radically alter our interpretation of the geological record).
-
Others would argue that it can be tested and offer a “working model” (e.g., Rana and Ross, Origins of Life, 43-44).
1. Life appeared early in Earth’s history while the planet was still in its primordial state (Gen 1.2)
2. Life originated in and persisted through the hostile conditions of early Earth (Gen 1.2)
3. Life originates abruptly.
4. Earth’s first life displays complexity.
5. Life is complex in its minimal form.
6. Life’s chemistry displays the hallmark characteristics of design.
7. First life was qualitatively different from life that came into existence on creation days three (plants), five (marine invertebrate and fish, marine mammals, and birds), and six (specialized land mammals).
-
God’s is by nature invisible (He is a spirit) and thus you cannot “test” his existence in a “scientific” manner. One can only see the effect of something (e.g., creation) and infer God as the cause due to his nature. However, it is a categorical fallacy to claim God does not exist because his very nature transcends the category itself.
(top)
4. “How can Christians believe in Genesis 1 (the “days of creation”) when it is contradicted by current scientific evidence?”
-
Two of the three “Christian” positions on science and Genesis (progressive creationism and theistic evolution) do not interpret the “days” of Genesis in a literal manner. They note that “day” could be interpreted literally or figuratively (long periods of time or eons). Moreover, both agree with the current astronomical findings regarding the old age of the universe and earth. Although progressive theism rejects “evolution” (life cannot be traced to a common ancestor, species multiply according to their own kind) theistic evolution agrees that evolution is a secondary mechanism for creating the world (God being the primary one). Both would hold to a relatively old age for modern humans as well (progressive theism: 10,000-100,000; theistic evolution: 40,000-250,000 years ago).
One of the primary differences in dating between these two views is that progressive creationism may seek to identify when humanity shows definitive evidence that they were created in God’s image (e.g., worship relics found have been dated between 8,000 to 24,000 years ago) and theistic evolution includes tool use, burial practices, art, and music as definitive signs of spirituality for human beings.
-
In particular, some advocates of progressive creationism maintain that God created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1.1 and interpret the rest of the creation days from the vantage point of above the surface of the water while looking up towards the sky and across the horizons. Thus, the formless and void of Genesis 1.2 refers to the gases and cooling off of the earth (hence the human observer could not see earth). Thus, when light is created (Gen 1.4) it’s not referring to when God created the sun, moon, and stars. Rather, it refers to when the sun, moon, and stars were now able to be seen.
-
On the other hand, some progressive creationists believe that Genesis 1 is “poetic” in nature and should not be interpreted literally since the biblical worldview predated modern science. Hence, the “days” of Genesis provide the reader with a “framework” to understand God’s creation (e.g., day one, day two, day three, etc.) with the seventh day symbolically meaning “very good” (seven means complete in Hebrew). Moreover, this view observes many reasons for rejecting a “literal” interpretation of the “days” in Genesis 1 (erroneous chronology, symmetrical natural of the account, similarity of pattern with ancient Near East cosmologies, metaphoric/anthropomorphic language).
-
In contrast to these two views, a young earth creationist believes that the “days” in Genesis should be interpreted literally and therefore does contradict current scientific findings. The most natural interpretation of “day” is a twenty-four hour time period. Regarding the age of the universe and earth many would contend that the dating methods employed by most scientists are flawed. Concerning the geological timetable if one holds to a universal flood then we should not expect to find “correct” measurements or dating conclusions as well.
-
In summary, although all three positions cannot be correct, all three may be classified as “Christian views.” Progressive creationism agrees with much of the scientific data (e.g., geology, astronomy) and theistic evolution combines the belief of God with evolution. Consequently, the challenge of interpreting the “days of Genesis” does not constitute a problem for being a follow of Christ (Rom 10.13).
(top)
<-- back to list of questions |
