Edward O. Wilson was one of the most outstanding scientists in the United States until he died in 2021. In his book, On Human Nature, he confidently claimed that science can explain all that needs to be explained, including religion as a human created phenomenon. Theology’s days are numbered, he contended.1 Richard Dawkins has written a number of books on evolution in which he contends that modern evolutionary theory proves that there is no god. Dawkins states that he cannot imagine how anyone in a scientific age can think there is a place for faith: “Faith is the great cop-out,” he writes, “the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.”2
But it is not just the published scientists who are skeptics about faith. Most of us know people who, whether or not they are scientists, have a hard time with faith in God in our modern, scientific world. They trust their senses – what they can see, hear, and touch – and the idea of a God who is real but invisible is hard for them to swallow. How do we respond to such friends and family members – as well as the Wilsons and Dawkins of the world?
Some Christians respond by being anti-science. Whether the issue is evolution, climate change, vaccines, or cancer treatment, they have no problem ignoring science. It is all a matter of faith, for them, and they blame science for a lot that is wrong in the modern world. For example, one anti-evolution Christian writer argues that “when science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.” He goes on to say, “evolutionary thought is basically responsible for…the chaotic moral and social disintegrations that have been accelerating everywhere [in our society].”3
Is that the only response we Christians can make? I don’t know about you, but in many of these debates and battles over religion and science, I feel like I am in “no man’s land,” standing in between two warring sides firing away from well-fortified trenches. I am not ready to join either side. How do we then respond to the science-oriented skeptics in our midst?
First, to the science-oriented skeptics, I have this to say: beware of bad theology. When you say that faith, unlike scientific theories, cannot be tested and proved in the way scientific theories can, I say, “guilty as charged.” You are correct.
I often wish that faith could readily be proved through our senses: that everyone could hear the voice of God, that everyone could film Jesus doing some great miracle that would convince everyone that he is the Son of God. But that is not the way God has decided to work. And, in any case, that is not the way humans work. God could speak audibly to all or shape words in the sky through clouds – but we would find some reason to explain it all away if we did not already believe in God. Jesus, after all, did walk and talk and do miracles in front of people 2000 years ago – but apparently a majority of people who saw and heard him rejected him as Messiah for the Jews, much less for the whole word.
The fact is: seeing is not enough. As Hebrews reminds us, “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” We do not believe by sight but by faith. Whether there is a god or not is not something that we can prove through our senses. So, when skeptics say you cannot prove faith by science or reason, I agree. But when skeptics say that faith is no longer relevant or necessary in our modern scientific world, I have to say, “hold on there.”
When people like Wilson and Dawkins say that “theology’s days are numbered,” or “faith is a cop-out,” they are not doing science. Those statements cannot be proved through scientific experimentation or observation, either. Statements like those are nothing more than an assertion of faith like the ones they criticize, except theirs is a faith in science.
Science and theology are addressing different questions. Science can tell us how creation has unfolded, but it cannot tell us why it was created or by whom. Science can tell us about the DNA and the physical structures and processes of humans, but science cannot tell us about what it means to be human, or what it takes to have a meaningful life. Science can give us a definition of life; it cannot show us how we should live. Those are questions faith and theology answer.
When people like Wilson and Dawkins contend that faith is unreasonable, you also have to question how reasonable atheism is. Consider this: according to the best cosmologists, “in the early moments of the universe following the Big Bang, matter and antimatter were created in almost equivalent amounts.” Almost but not exactly: “For about every billion pairs of quarks and antiquarks, there was [one] extra quark.” If there were not this slight asymmetry, planets, stars, and people would never have come into existence,” the Christian scientist, Francis Collins writes.
In fact, there are 15 physical constants, he points out, such as the speed of light and the rate of the universe’s expansion, that have to be exactly what they are, no more no less, for there to be a universe capable of supporting complex life. Is it reasonable to think that is merely an accident?4
Science and theology may be exploring the same creation, but they do so from very different points of view. “Science’s domain is to explore nature,” Collins writes. [Religion’s] domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science.” Like love, “it must be examined with the heart, the mind, and the soul.”
In a scientific world, how can we have faith? By recognizing the limits to the answers that science can give us. And, by committing not just our minds, but our hearts and souls, to the quest for a relationship with the One who is not just our Maker, but also our Redeemer, and ever-present Companion.
Second, to the science skeptics in the church I want to say, beware of bad science. To be sure, we Christians always want to recognize the limits to what science can address and answer, and we always want to claim the centrality of the Bible for our faith. But in doing so, I don’t think we ever want to engage in “bad science,” claiming on a scientific basis what has not been scientifically proven, or ignoring the scientific evidence because we don’t like it. Why is there such a danger in relying on bad science? It may impact our health and the health of our planet. But it also may negatively impact our witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Because if those who stand outside the church think we are getting bad science from the Scriptures, they are likely to dismiss the rest of the Bible as an outdated book of errors as well.
The Bible is not a science textbook; it is a theological library. Church theologians have been pointing that out since long before modern science arose. 1600 years ago, the great theologian, Augustine, wrote in his commentary on the Book of Genesis: “usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars…and so forth…Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people [see] vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”
1600 years ago! Then the question was the Genesis picture of the sky as a big done separating water above from the earth below. Now, the questions may be about evolution or other areas of science. The questions change, but the underlying issue hasn’t. David Wilcox is an evangelical Chrisitan, scientist, and former professor at Eastern University. He writes that the biggest impediment to witnessing to non-Christians enrolled in graduate science programs are Christian leaders who argue for a science that these graduate students understand to be blatantly wrong.5
So in response to the debates between some Christians and some scientists, let us say this: while there may be conflicts between Christians and scientists, there really is no conflict between faith and science. Because truth is truth.
The truth gained by science may be different from the truth gained from the Scriptures, but there can be no real conflict because God is the source of both. Where there is apparent conflict, it is either because our scientific theories are wrong or our interpretations of the Scripture are wrong.
As we said before, Genesis 1 is not a scientific textbook. I encourage you to read Genesis 1 in its entirety. We believe Genesis is inspired and speaks the truth – but more in the way that poetry does rather than science. Which means that it must be read differently than a science textbook. Genesis is not trying to answer how our world came into being or when – the questions asked by science. What Genesis is trying to answer is Who created what is, and what our Creator is like.
Science may tell us that our DNA is 98% like that of the chimpanzees; Genesis and the Scriptures tell us that we alone among God’s creation are created in the image of God. As John Calvin wrote 500 years ago, “He who would learn astronomy…let him go elsewhere than to what [Genesis] has to say about waters above the heaven.” (Commentary on Gen. 1:6). When we hear the latest discoveries of astronomy or evolutionary biology, the Christian need not be prepared for combat; instead, we can simply say with awe and wonder, “oh, that is how God did it.”
Calvin and Augustine knew that science and faith are not mortal enemies. Instead, they are meant to go hand in hand. In fact, there are many historians of science who think that Christian beliefs in a Creator who stands apart from creation and that there is an order to creation laid the foundation for modern science. As the geologist and former president of Cornell University Frank Rhodes has written, people today might accept the validity of the presuppositions of science…simply because science works. But the pioneers of science could make no such appeal to past successes. “They justified their assumptions on the basis of their belief in a personal, rational, and dependable God.”6
Science and faith go hand in hand because both need humility, as another Christian scientist has written. “Humility is required because we should always be aware that our objectivity is compromised, and our reasoning is limited. We often get things wrong.”7 The history of the church is replete with examples of misinterpretation of Scripture and actions which make us cringe now. As someone born in the south, I know too well that there were Southern Presbyterian ministers who tried to justify slavery through the Bible.
But the same is true for science. For example, in 1847 the physician Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that thorough handwashing by physicians could prevent transmission of infections to mothers and save many lives lost in childbirth. Nevertheless, the medical establishment did not believe his results, and ridiculed him. When he argued strongly in support of his finding, he was placed into a mental asylum, where he died.8 Needless to say, he was proven right.
Science and faith also walk hand in hand when it comes to wonder over the marvels of creation and the need to cherish and care for creation. Whenever I want to read to rekindle wonder, it is to the writings of scientists and poets, that I go. And we Bible-followers would do well to listen to science about how to be the stewards of creation Genesis tells us we are.
In 1530, Nicolas Copernicus caused quite a stir when he published his book, On the Revolutions, because in that book he contended that the earth revolved around the sun. His conclusion flew in the face of the teachings of both science and the Catholic church. But for Copernicus and his supporters, many of whom were members of the new Protestant churches trying to reform the church, Copernicus’ discovery celebrated, rather than diminished, the grandeur of God. This is what Copernicus himself wrote about science and faith:
“To know the mighty works of God; to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate in degree, the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High.”9
500 years later, that still makes sense to me.
- E.O. Wilson, On Human Nature (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), 192. ↩︎
- R. Dawkins, “Is Sciene a Relition?” The Humanist 57 (1997): 26-29. ↩︎
- Quoted by Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 5. ↩︎
- Collins, 71-72, 73-75. ↩︎
- David L. Wilcox, God and Evolution: A Faith-Based Understanding (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 2004), 140. ↩︎
- Quoted by Graeme Finlay, God’s Gift of Science (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2022), 20. ↩︎
- Finlay, 55. ↩︎
- Finlay, 80. ↩︎
- Collins, 230. ↩︎
