NOTES ON SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF

Professor Allan J Day

Revised Edition 2009

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Introduction 2009

NOTES ON SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF

By Professor Allan J Day

With contributions by others as listed under Chapter Headings

Revised Edition 2009

Edited by Bruce Craven and John Pilbrow

Published by ISCAST(Vic), Huntingdale Rd, Huntingdale, Victoria

ISBN 0 9578934 0 X Copyright © 2001, 2009 ISCAST (Vic)

Reproduction of these notes without written permission of ISCAST (Vic) is prohibited.

Author: Allan J Day i

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Introduction 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE .......................................................................................iii
CHAPTER HEADINGS AND OUTLINES ............................................iv
Science and Christian Belief - Introduction to the Issues .............iv
1. Historical Overview — From Aristotle to the 18th Century .........iv
2. Darwin and the Aftermath — Science and Faith in the 19th & 20th
Centuries ..................................................................................iv
3. God’s Interaction with the World— Some Metaphysical
Considerations .........................................................................iv
4. Rational Inquiry — Science and Theology and their Limitations iv
5. Ways of Relating Science and Faith ..........................................iv
6. Cosmology, Creation and the Biblical Record .............................v
7. Evolution and Creation ..............................................................v
8. The Nature of Humanity.............................................................v
9. Genetics, Reproductive Technology and Ethics ..........................v
10. The Earth and Its Environment ................................................v
INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUES ...................................................vi
1. Allan J Day — Personal Background..........................................vi
2. Issues That Need To Be Addressed...........................................vi
3. Fundamental Premise...............................................................vi
HISTORY OF SCIENCE ...................................................................vi
1. Origin of Science ......................................................................vi
2. Science as a Religious Activity..................................................vi
MISCONCEPTIONS ....................................................................... vii
We will consider seven misconceptions. ...................................... vii
1. That Science Does Away with the Need for God ...................... vii
2. That Science and Faith Are Incompatible. ............................... vii
3. That Christian Faith Is Irrational – Superstition ..................... viii
4. That Science Is Determinist.................................................... viii
5. That Science Can Prove God ................................................... viii
6. That a Scientific World View Is Unnecessary .......................... viii
7. That the Bible Is a Scientific Text Book .................................. viii
CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................ix
GENERAL REFERENCES .................................................................ix

Author: Allan J Day ii

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Introduction 2009

PREFACE
Over the last decade or so an increasing interest in the relationship between science and
religion has developed. This has resulted in the proliferation of courses in science and
religion at many tertiary institutions and the appointment of senior academics to
positions in this area. Oxford University e.g. appointed its first Professor of Science and
Religion within the Faculty of Theology in 1999.
The interest in this area has also been stimulated by the active financial support of the
John Templeton Foundation. The Foundation awarded 100 Course Awards annually
internationally for courses in Science and Religion over a five year period from about
1998 until 2002.
These notes form the basis of one such course in Science and Christian Belief conducted
as part of the Ridley College Certificate of Bible and Ministry in Melbourne, Australia.
They are intended to give a basic understanding of the issues raised by modern science
and of the relationship of these issues to the Christian Faith. They cover briefly the
historical background of the development of science and the interaction of such
development with religious faith. They also address some of the philosophical issues with
respect to religious and scientific knowledge and consider some of the positions that
have been taken by various groups with respect to the science faith interface.
On this basis they explore the implications for theology of discoveries in modern science
– important among these are the recent developments in cosmology and biology. Some
of the misconceptions commonly held by secular humanists, by the general public and
also by many Christians, with respect to the relationship between science and faith are
considered.
The approach to Science and Faith is presented in a way that is consistent with both
scientific integrity and Biblical authority. These notes are designed for both science and
theological students as well as teachers who encounter these issues. Indeed our hope is
that they will be useful to any who have an interest in the rapidly growing interface
between science and religion.
The notes are also very much a work in progress. We recognize the cryptic format of
some material and also that thinking evolves as new issues emerge. It is our intention to
review these notes regularly and update them as the opportunities permit and in
response to feedback.
These introductory notes, originally mostly written by Allan J Day in 2001, have been
edited recently by Dr Bruce Craven and Prof John Pilbrow.

Author: Allan J Day iii

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Introduction 2009

CHAPTER HEADINGS AND OUTLINES

Science and Christian Belief - Introduction to the Issues

Allan J Day
This provides a brief introduction to the relations between science and spirituality,
and the diverse attitudes that some have taken. The following chapters explore
these questions in detail.

1. Historical Overview — From Aristotle to the 18th Century1

Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day
Chapter 1 surveys the various ideas held, from ancient Greece to the 18th
Century, concerning the natural world and its relation to theological ideas. Points
of note are Galileo's exposition of the relation between the bible and the book of
nature, ideas of a mechanistic universe from Newton onward, and questions of
the age of the earth, leading up to Lyell's uniformitarianism.
2. Darwin and the Aftermath — Science and Faith in the 19th & 20th
Centuries
Allan J Day
Chapter 2 continues the story, to Darwin's Origin of Species, and the various
reactions to it. There was then no united opposition to evolution by Christian
thinkers; attitudes varied. Only much later did the "young earth" viewpoint and
many other anti-evolution positions become an article of faith for many
Christians.
3. God’s Interaction with the World— Some Metaphysical Considerations
Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day
Chapter 3 outlines various "world views" on the relation of the natural world to
divinity, or to the belief that there is none. Of note here are "naturalism", the
belief that the physical world is all there is, "deism", that God set the world going
and then left it alone, and "theism", that God is constantly active in the world.
4. Rational Inquiry — Science and Theology and their Limitations
Allan J Day
Chapter 4 discusses the limitations of science and of theology. In particular,
what is scientific knowledge, what are scientific theories? Science describes truth,
and does not prescribe it; and scientific knowledge is not the only kind of
knowledge. What is theology, and what is meant by verifying a theological
theory? Theology of "motivated belief", not just "subjective perception".
5. Ways of Relating Science and Faith
Allan J Day
Chapter 5 discusses ways to relate science and faith under the headings of
conflict (scientism, creationism), separation, complementarity, integration
(assimilation), and rejection (new age).

1
Throughout we will use 19thC and 19th Century etc. interchangeably.

Author: Allan J Day iv

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Introduction 2009

6. Cosmology, Creation and the Biblical Record

Allan J Day & John R Pilbrow
Chapter 6 discusses the biblical doctrine of creation in relation to the scientific
picture of origins, as in modern physics and cosmology. Many recent viewpoints
are surveyed, as well as the implications for God's continued activity, and some
analysis of creation in Genesis.
7. Evolution and Creation
Allan J Day
Chapter 7 on evolution and creation, considers evolution by natural selection as
a proposed mechanism, to be assessed on scientific grounds, whereas creation
should be judged on theological and biblical grounds.
8. The Nature of Humanity
Allan J Day
Chapter 8 discusses the nature of humanity, with regard to the genetic code and
neurophysiology, and also to biblical anthropology, regarded as a complementary
approach, also valid.
9. Genetics, Reproductive Technology and Ethics
Allan J Day
Chapter 9 discusses genetics in relation to reproductive technology, and the
consequent ethical questions.
10. The Earth and Its Environment
Ross H. Macmillan
Chapter 10 discusses the earth and its environment, with regard to the various
understandings of the earth, and the several attitudes that may be taken to
environmental questions (including utilitarian, conservation, sustainable
development), and a theology of stewardship.

Author: Allan J Day v

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Introduction 2009

INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUES

1. Allan J Day — Personal Background
At the time these lectures were last presented in 2001, Professor Allan Day had
for 50 years a shared commitment to both science and Christianity. He had had
time therefore, to think through and integrate the issues of science and Christian
faith. In expressing a personal faith in Christ and pursuing a scientific career he
found himself in the company of many scientists both in the past and in the
present who have found no problem in being both scientists and Christians.
He argues that there is no need therefore for anyone to sacrifice intellectual
integrity or to be embarrassed in having a Christian faith and in espousing a
scientific approach to the world.
2. Issues That Need To Be Addressed
This is not to deny however that there are issues that need to be addressed and
this is what this course is all about. Many of these issues have arisen as a result
of the separation of science from theology. This separation was part and parcel of
the development of modern science in the 16-17th Centuries and in some ways
led on to the dominance of a secular world view, particularly over the last 150
years. This development was not intrinsic to the nature or practice of science, but
rather of the way it was perceived by many as a dominant (or even exclusive)
way of knowing about the world. These perceptions need however to be critically
reviewed.
There are many misconceptions held by both non Christians and Christians about
these matters that lead to unnecessary problems. We will attempt therefore, in
the sessions that follow, to try and resolve some of these problems and
misconceptions.
3. Fundamental Premise
As was expressed by some of the founders of the modern scientific movement,
such as Francis Bacon and Galileo, we need to assert that God is the author of all
truth, scientific and biblical. Scientific truth is the truth about nature read in the
“Book of nature” while biblical truth is the truth about God read in the Scriptures.
This separation was part and parcel of the liberation of science from medieval
science and encapsulated in the comment of Galileo that
“The bible tells us how to go to heaven not how the heavens go”.
This well known metaphor of the two books taken up by both Bacon and Galileo
however also indicates that there can be no conflict between the truths derived
from the respective approaches. If there is apparent conflict we need to re-look at
our interpretation of both.

HISTORY OF SCIENCE
1. Origin of Science
The development of modern science presupposed a God of order who created a
world that was contingent on His will and therefore could be explored by
experiment, not just discovered by reason alone. The world was conceived as part
of God’s creation, not divine in itself.
2. Science as a Religious Activity
Many early scientists were devout Christians, who saw their science as an
expression of their faith, as a way of exploring God’s ways in nature. This object
is expressed in the Charter of the Royal Society, the first of the scientific
societies, founded in 1662, as the account of its first historian, Spratt, records.

Author: Allan J Day vi

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Introduction 2009

MISCONCEPTIONS
There are conceptual problems about the relationship of science and faith held by non
Christians, including secular humanists, but also by many Christians. These
misunderstandings need to be addressed if we are to understand the proper approach to
science and belief. We cannot prove or disprove God by science, but we do need to see
the logical issues and the mistakes made which have resulted in some false
understandings.
We will consider seven misconceptions.
1. That Science Does Away with the Need for God
This is the secular humanist argument, i.e. God is a "God of the Gaps". Faith is a
medieval construct, made redundant by scientific explanations.
History of the enlightenment
Medieval science did not separate primary and secondary causes — God was the
ultimate cause. Now, it is reasoned, phenomena can be better explained by
science. Thus God is envisaged as a 'stop gap' explanation — evidence of our
previous ignorance, e.g. lightning — Act of God/static electricity. Laplace stated
there was "no need of that hypothesis".
God of the gaps — A shrinking God
This represents a mistaken concept of God, an inadequate view of God. “A God
who is too small”. It reduces God to a secondary cause. It is not the Christian
God. The God of theism is envisaged as being ultimately responsible for all of
nature (“He makes the grass to grow”), but whose actions are described by
scientific laws discoverable by science.
Evolution/Creation issue
This is well illustrated by the evolution-creation debate. The failure to distinguish
God as the primary cause and evolution as a secondary cause investigated and
decided by science.
As Christians we can allow for a full explanation of natural events in scientific
terms – this does not constitute a threat to faith. God is not threatened by "our
explaining him away". What is threatened is our concept of God, a God of the
gaps made in our own image.
2. That Science and Faith Are Incompatible.
That they are strange bedfellows and cannot co-exist. Thus it is assumed that
only the material is real. The only real knowledge is obtained by what we can
observe, by the scientific method. Cf. Medawar.
There are, however, other views of reality. e.g."Religious or aesthetic or
moral experience" is real.
Science is concerned with “how" questions. By observation and experiment.
Its information is thus limited by its method.
Faith asks ”why", "who" questions. The two complement each other cf.
relationships, painting, SOS. Represent different “windows" of information. A
different approach to reality - "complementary".
Science needs Theology for a full explanation i.e. Science generates "why"
questions, but cannot answer them.
Questions posed by the new physics e.g. quantum physics and relativity.
Where do the "laws of physics” come from? The role of "purpose", "elegance",
“design”. These all raise issues beyond physics or metaphysics.

Author: Allan J Day vii

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Introduction 2009

3. That Christian Faith Is Irrational – Superstition

But the Christian faith is based on rational data. It can be investigated.
Death/resurrection events. Historic facts of the gospel and the Old Testament,
and one can approach this with reason.
However faith goes beyond, but faith and sight are the poles of faith and
truth. We can observe facts, draw conclusions - gives a basis for faith.
Atheism is just as much an act of belief — no more logical. i.e. We can choose to
believe/disbelieve — one is not more logical.
4. That Science Is Determinist
Preset — rigid i.e. There is no basis for God to interact.
Newtonian science certainly presented a determinist world, with God as a
"watchmaker" — Deism.
Now replaced by Einsteinian physics. Einsteinian science — quantum — "open
systems", world of probabilities. Indeterminism e.g. Chaos and the butterfly
effect, therefore less certainty — chance.
God interacts with his world — prayer/providence. See Polkinghorne (1989).
5. That Science Can Prove God
Many Christians consider science proves God — the argument from design. This is
over-optimism. It can also be used to replace God. Deism etc. The new physics
does not prove God. Ps. 8 "The heavens declare the glory of God ..." but as seen
by the worshipper.
Problems of natural theology.
Cannot discover God by reason alone. We are both finite and sinful, cf. Rom.
1:18ff.
Therefore do not overrate science.
It raises questions, but faith extends it.
Scientists are both non-Christian and Christian — neither standpoint is more
logical but we acknowledge God "by faith" cf. Heb. 11 3.
6. That a Scientific World View Is Unnecessary
Non-Christian mysticism
In the present post-modern world scientific verification is giving way to
mysticism, to incredulous practices such as astrology, Tarot spirituality, i.e. a
rejection of "order" in the created world. For the Christian — God is a God of
"order", i.e. God acts in a 'logical' way. The Gen. 1 mandate is to investigate this
ordered world.
Christian Semi-deism
Many Christians consider God as an interventionist God. They fail to recognise
God is the God of natural events; that nature is a picture of his works. Scientific
Laws express God's rationality and make science possible.
Creation science — has a pseudo scientific approach to cosmology.
7. That the Bible Is a Scientific Text Book
i.e. That we can learn "how" God created world from Gen. 1 — NO!!
E.g. "creationism — creation science".

Author: Allan J Day viii

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Introduction 2009

Literal interpretation — therefore must rewrite science. Correlate scientific theory

with the Bible.
However, the Bible doesn't speak with scientific inerrancy but speaks in
everyday language. e.g. ‘The sun sets.’ Poetic language, myth revealing truth,
creation expressed in terms of the cosmology of the Ancient Near East.
Bible is concerned with who God is and who we are.
Not with origins. Except that it affirms that without God the universe would not
exist.

CONCLUSIONS
Faith and Science are complementary, not in conflict. They represent different windows
on reality. Faith looks at the God of nature — by Scripture. Science looks at the Nature
of God — by creation. Thus we can be both Christian and Scientists.

GENERAL REFERENCES
Alexander, D, 2008, Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose? Monarch, Oxford and
Grand Rapids.
Alexander, D, 2001, Rebuilding the Matrix: Science and Faith in the 21st Century, Lion
Publishing, London.
Barbour, I, 1990, Religion in an Age of Science, SCM, London.
Berry, RJ, 1988, God and Evolution, Hodder and Stoughton, London.
Berry, RJ, Real Science, Real Faith, Monarch.
Brooke, JH, 1991, Science and Religion, Some Historical Perspectives, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Brown, WS, Murphy, N, Maloney, HN, 1998, Whatever Happened to the Soul, Fortress,
Minneapolis.
Bube, R, 1995, Putting it All Together- Seven Patterns for Relating Science and the
Christian Faith, University Press of America, Lanham.
Collins, F, 2006, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Free
Press, NY.
Finlay, G, 2004, Evolving Creation, Telos Books, Auckland, NZ.
Finlay, G, 2004, God’s Books: Genetics and Genesis, Telos Books, Auckland.
Holder, R, 1993, Nothing but Atoms and Molecules, Monarch, Tunbridge Wells.
Hooykaas R, 1972, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science, Scottish Academic Press,
Edinburgh/Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Hooykaas, R, 1959, Natural Law and Divine Miracle, EJ Brill, Leiden, p. 237.
Houghton, JT, 1997, Global Warning; the complete briefing, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Houghton. J, 1995, The Search for God, Lion, London.
Jeeves, MA, 1997, Human Nature at the Millenium, Baker, Grand Rapids & Appolos,
Leicester.
Jeeves, MA, Berry, RJ, 1998, Science, Life and Christian Belief, Apollos, Leicester.
Jeeves, MA, Ed., 2004, From Cells to Souls – and beyond: Changing Portraits of Human
Nature, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Author: Allan J Day ix

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Introduction 2009

Jones, G, 1987, Manufacturing Humans, IVP, Leicester.

Jones, G, 2007, Bioethics: When the Challenges of Life Become Too Difficult, ATF Press,
Adelaide.
Lindberg, D, and Numbers, R, (Eds), 1986, God and Nature - Historical Essays on the
Encounter between Christianity and Science, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Lucas, E, 2001, Can we believe Genesis today? The Bible and he questions of science.
IVP, Leicester.
Lucas, E, 1996, Science and the New Age Challenge, IVP, Leicester.
MacKay, D, 1988, The Open Mind and other Essays, IVP, Leicester.
Moore, J, 1979, The Post Darwinian Controversies, CUP. Cambridge.
Neild, D, 2004, God Created the Heavens and the Earth, Telos Books, Auckland, NZ,
Numbers, R, 1992, The Creationists, Alfred Knopf, New York.
Peacocke, A, 1993, Theology for a Scientific Age, SCM, London.
Peacocke, A, 1996, God and Science, SCM, London.
Peters, T, 1997, Playing God?, Routledge, NY.
Peters, T, Ed., 1998, Genetics: Genes, Religion and Society, Pilgrim.
Peters, T, Hewlett, M, 2003, Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict,
Conversation, and Convergence. Abingdon, Nashville.
Peters, T, Hewlett, M, 2006, Can You Believe in God and Evolution? A Guide for the
Perplexed, Abingdon, Nashville,
Polkinghorne, J, 1983, The Way the World Is, Triangle, London.
Polkinghorne, J, 1989, Science and Providence, SPCK, London.
Polkinghorne, J, 1991, Reason and Reality, SPCK, London.
Polkinghorne, J, 1994, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, Triangle, London.
Polkinghorne, J, 1996, Beyond Science, CUP, Cambridge.
Polkinghorne, J, 2002, Quantum Theory : A Very Short Introduction, OUP.
Polkinghorne, JC, 1988, Science and Creation, SPCK, London.
Polkinghorne, JC, 1989, Science and Providence, SPCK, London.
Polkinghorne, JC, 1994, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, Triangle, London.
Polkinghorne, JC, 1994, Science and Christian Belief, SPCK, London.
Poole, M, 1990, A Guide to Science and Belief, Lion, London.
Poole, M, Wenham, GJ, Creation or Evolution - A False Antithesis, Latimer House,
Oxford.
Russell, C, 1985, Crosscurrents - Interaction between Science and Faith, IVP, Leicester.
Conway Morris, S, 2006, Life’s Solutions: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, CUP
Cambridge.
Thompson, JA, 2007 Genesis 1-3: Science? History? Theology?, Acorn/Iscast, East
Brunswick. [May be purchased on-line at www.iscast.org]
Towne, M, 2003, Honest to Genesis: A Biblical and Scientific Challenge to Creationism,
Publishamerica, Baltimore.
Wilkinson D, 1997, God, the Big Bang and Stephen Hawking, Monarch, Tunbridge Wells.

Author: Allan J Day x

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Introduction 2009

Worthing, MW, 1996, God, Creation and Contemporary Physics, Fortress, Minneapolis.
Young, D, 1992, The Discovery of Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Author: Allan J Day xi

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

Chapter 1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

From Aristotle to the 18th Century

Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-1

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

CONTENTS – CHAPTER 1
Chapter 1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW .......................................... 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1-3
1.1.1 From Aristotle to the 18th Century ................................................................ 1-3
1.1.2 19th Century and beyond..................................................................... 1-3
1.1.3 Importance of History .......................................................................... 1-3
1.1.4 Major Events ........................................................................................... 1-3
1.1.5 Themes ..................................................................................................... 1-3
1.1.6 Lessons ..................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2 FROM ARISTOTLE TO THE 18TH CENTURY ........................ 1-4
1.2.1 Rapid development ............................................................................... 1-4
1.2.2 Origins ....................................................................................................... 1-4
1.3 GREEK SCIENCE .............................................................. 1-4
1.3.1 Positive Features.................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.2 Negative Features.................................................................................. 1-4
1.4 MEDIEVAL SCIENCE......................................................... 1-5
1.4.1 Arab Science............................................................................................ 1-5
1.4.2 Aristotelian Christian Synthesis – Thomism ................................. 1-5
1.4.3 Problems – Nature of God and Creation ........................................ 1-5
1.4.4 Role of Natural Theology and Revealed theology........................ 1-5
1.5 SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION – 16TH & 17TH Centuries ....... 1-6
1.5.1 Renaissance............................................................................................. 1-6
1.5.2 Reformation – New Understanding of Scripture .......................... 1-6
1.5.3 Judeo-Christian Input........................................................................... 1-6
1.5.4 Bacon’s Two Books................................................................................ 1-7
1.6 COPERNICAN REVOLUTION ............................................. 1-7
1.6.1 Copernican Astronomy - Prelude to Galileo .................................. 1-7
1.7 THE GALILEO CONTROVERSY .......................................... 1-8
1.7.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 1-8
1.7.2 1589-1610 — Scientific Controversy............................................... 1-9
1.7.3 1611-1633 — Theological Controversy .......................................... 1-9
1.7.4 1633- 1642 Final Years — Trial and Condemnation................. 1-11
1.8 17TH CENTURY SCIENCE – NEWTON AND THE
MECHANISTIC UNIVERSE...................................................... 1-12
1.8.1 The Clockwork Universe .................................................................... 1-12
1.8.2 Impact of Newtonian physics........................................................... 1-13
1.8.3 Christian responses............................................................................. 1-13
1.8.4 17th Century British Scientists......................................................... 1-14
1.9 NATURAL THEOLOGY..................................................... 1-15
1.9.1 Development ......................................................................................... 1-15
1.9.2 William Paley......................................................................................... 1-15
1.10 THE ENLIGHTENMENT, DEISM AND ATHEISM .............. 1-16
1.10.1 Weakness of Natural Theology ..................................................... 1-16
1.10.2 Deism, Atheism.................................................................................. 1-16
1.11 THE AGE AND HISTORY OF THE EARTH........................ 1-17
1.11.1 History of Geology ............................................................................ 1-17
1.12 CHRISTIAN RESPONSES TO GEOLOGY ......................... 1-19
1.12.1 Christian Geologists.......................................................................... 1-19
1.12.2 Resurgence of Flood Geology ........................................................ 1-20
1.13 REFERENCES ............................................................... 1-20
Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-2
Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

1.1 !"#$%&'(#!%")
These notes will give a brief overview of the development of science from the classical
period to the present day, and emphasise some of the salient issues that have emerged.
Two main periods will be discussed.

1.1.1 !"#$%&"'()#)*+%)#%),+%-.),%/+0)1"2%
This period saw the development of classical science, the rise of Christianity, and
the integration of many aspects of the classical worldview and world picture into
Christian thought. No sooner had this been achieved however, than classical
science was challenged by the development of modern science.

1.1.2 19th Century and beyond

Much of the change from the classical to the modern scientific world pictures has
been a change from a static to a dynamic understanding of the world. From being
to becoming, as is sometimes said. Part of this change was also the recognition of
the material insignificance of the earth and humanity in space and time. The
challenges of these discoveries for Christian thought, largely framed in classical
terms, were immense.

1.1.3 Importance of History

Why do we bother to study history? There are several reasons. By discovering how
we got here we can better understand where we are. In the process we can
rediscover lost perspectives and avoid pitfalls. In the context of studying the
relationship between science and faith, studying the history of that interaction
allows us to see what issues were important in the past, discover the roots of
current debates, and from these forge better intellectual tools for understanding
and use.

1.1.4 Major Events

This chapter sets out to answer three questions: The first is to identify the major
events in the history of the science-faith interaction from about 200 BC to the
middle ages. The second is to identify the themes that have characterised this
interaction. The third is to underline the lessons that these hold for the present
and future?

1.1.5 Themes
Several themes come through any historical overview. These include the facts that
Christians have always integrated their theology with the contemporary
understanding of the world. This is fraught with danger as the contemporary
understanding is always in flux. There have been times when Christians have
defended as “the” Christian position an obsolete scientific world picture.

1.1.6 Lessons
The lessons that emerge for Christians from this history are many. However
several predominate. The first is not to attempt to develop a scientific model on
the basis of the Biblical worldview – all attempts will fail. A second is to hold
loosely to any attempt to relate or integrate Christian theology with contemporary
science – the science will inevitably change. A third, and probably most important,
is to exercise humility and charity with those with whom we differ.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-3

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

1.2 FROM ARISTOTLE TO THE 18TH CENTURY

1.2.1 Rapid development

In contrast to classical science, modern science (that which developed subsequent
to about 1600) has developed very rapidly. In 400 years our understanding of the
natural world has changed more than in the 4,000 years previously. Equally
impressive has been the application of that knowledge to technology. What is
behind this explosive development?

1.2.2 Origins
Greek Science (6th-2nd Centuries BC)
The importance of classical thought to science is often overstated, as we will see.
However, it cannot be denied that rediscovery of the science of the classical world,
of which the Greeks were the epitome, was an important factor leading to modern
science.
Judeo - Christian Theology
Less well known to the popular mind, but of at least equal and probably greater
importance was the Judeo-Christian worldview. In particular the doctrine of
creation allowed an attitude to the world that permitted modern science to develop
and flourish.

1.3 GREEK SCIENCE

1.3.1 Positive Features

Nature was ordered, not capricious, therefore capable of rational
explanation
The Greeks believed the world was Kosmos, not Kaos. It was ordered, orderly, and
therefore could be understood by the rational mind. The great contribution of
Greek thought to modern science was the importance of logic and mathematics.
Knowledge about nature was important
The Greeks were curious about the world. Explaining why the world was the way it
is was important to them. Combined with their emphasis on reason, this allowed
speculation about the world to be a legitimate activity.
Could be derived by deductive reason
Deductive reasoning about the nature of the world was an important part of Greek
science. Through deduction, the Greeks arrived at conclusions about the shape
and size of the earth, and speculated about the existence of atoms, the possibility
of life beyond the earth, organic evolution and whether or not the earth was the
centre of the universe.

1.3.2 Negative Features

Nature was non-created, eternal and therefore divine
This created a problem for the acceptance of Greek science in Christendom. There
were temporary bans placed on Aristotle’s natural philosophy in the University of
Paris in 1210 and 1215, and an attempt to expurgate them in 1231. Regarding
nature as divine also resulted in a worship of nature and an attitude of worship
towards the world. Inquiring into its workings could be seen as risking blasphemy.
Nature was governed by an inner force
Naturalism, pantheism, and vitalism are the common consequences of viewing the
world as divine. Together with excessive rationalism, a contempt for hands-on

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-4

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

experience, the rise of mysticism in the classical world led to the near extinction of
Greek science by about 200 BC.
Man’s reason was paramount and linked to nature.
With mankind as the measure of all things, it was considered possible to
comprehend the universe through reason alone. This suited the cultural prejudices
of the Greek world. Manual work was associated with slaves and artisans and
therefore menial, compared with the lofty thoughts of the elevated classes.
Experiments or observations required doing the sort of tasks associated with
slaves and artisans, not philosophers.
Thus experimental science was suppressed
Reason and rationalism was superior to empirical knowledge and experimental
science. Reason declared that the heavens were perfect and unchanging.
Therefore comets and meteorites were declared atmospheric phenomena, and
supernovae ignored.

1.4 MEDIEVAL SCIENCE

1.4.1 Arab Science

The Arabs made many contributions to medieval science. First of these was the
preservation of many Greek and Roman writings on scientific and mathematical
matters. Secondly, the Arabs adopted many scientific ideas from the Indian
subcontinent and China. Most important of these were “Arabic” numbers and zero,
both Indian inventions. Thirdly, the Arabs themselves contributed much to
mathematics, architecture, navigation, medicine, metallurgy, and astronomy. The
arrival of this knowledge in Europe led to the full flowering of the medieval
worldview and laid the foundations for the Renaissance.
For a more recent perspective, consult Peters et al. (2002).

1.4.2 Aristotelian Christian Synthesis – Thomism

Properties of God derived by reason.

1.4.3 Problems – Nature of God and Creation

The philosophy of Aristotle stood in sharp contrast to clear Biblical teaching.
Aristotle taught that the world was eternal, that God was an impersonal first
principle, and that celestial matter was different to terrestrial matter, sharing
some divine attributes. He also held that the soul (or souls) died with the body.
Aristotle thus represented a great problem to Christian scholars of the 10th–14th
centuries. He was clearly the greatest philosophical authority and this knowledge
invaluable. Furthermore, Aristotelian metaphysics and logic were among the most
developed in the ancient world and set the standard. On the other hand, Aristotle
clearly held many things contrary to Christian doctrine. The options for Christian
scholars were to reject Aristotle, and all the learning that went with it, to use him
selectively, or to Christianise Aristotelian philosophy.

1.4.4 Role of Natural Theology and Revealed theology

Natural theology is the study of what can be deduced about God from the natural
world. Revealed theology is the study of what the Bible says about God. Overall,
natural theology can be seen as revealing God’s impersonal attributes, while
revealed theology is about His personal attributes. The relationship between the
two is often strained. Natural theology, of itself, has tendencies to pantheism and
deism. Revealed theologians have often ignored what is known about the world
from science, especially when writing in the areas of creation, providence, and

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-5

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

eschatology. Both natural and revealed theology were part of the Thomistic
synthesis, with natural theology closely identified with Aristotelian science.

1.5 SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION – 16TH & 17TH Centuries

1.5.1 Renaissance
The Renaissance is the subject of much mythology. The myth suggests that it
occurred when Europe rediscovered the purity of Greek rationalism and cast off
the chains of ecclesiastical thought. In reality the rediscovery of the ancients and
of Arab science occurred during the 12th and 13th Centuries. The scientific
revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries was the sifting and rejection of much of
classical science, not its rediscovery. The breaking of ecclesiastical chains was the
Reformation, not the scientific revolution. Nevertheless, the reformation played a
key role in preparing the intellectual ground for the scientific revolution.

1.5.2 Reformation – New Understanding of Scripture

The reformers critically re-evaluated earlier theology against the standard of
Scripture. They also recognised that spiritual truth in the Scriptures was accessible
to all those who sought it humbly before God. The reformers recognised the
dignity of manual work as an act of worship (the so-called Protestant work ethic).
Finally, there was a recognition that theology had to be useful, in encouraging
ordinary people towards godliness.

1.5.3 Judeo-Christian Input

God as creator
Creation exists by His will, thus purpose is not intrinsic but resides in God. God is
faithful in creation; therefore what we learn from it is trustworthy, because the
creator is trustworthy.
Cosmos as creation
As creation, the cosmos is neither eternal nor divine. Therefore it should not be
worshipped; rather it shares humanity’s createdness. Since the cosmos is
contingent on God, its properties can only be discovered by investigation and
experiment, not by pure reason. Because creation is not divine such investigation
is permissible.
Man is God’s regent – steward
God has placed humanity in a position of responsibility in creation. These
responsibilities include subduing and caring for creation, to fill it, to name the
animals and till the earth.
Sanctity of work
Contrary to the ancient Greeks, work in the Bible is a gift from God; it is
something humanity is commanded to do. Furthermore, work is sanctified by the
Biblical revelation of God’s activity as a worker, such as a farmer, shepherd,
potter, and metal smith.
Rational Empiricism, Induction
The scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th Centuries followed on from the
Reformation with many similarities in basic methodology. It was characterised by
the linking of two approaches hitherto largely separate. These were rational
empiricism common to the practical artisans of the medieval period with the
induction of classical and scholastic thought, combined with an imperative to see
what the evidence actually pointed to, rather than relying on authority. This
approach closely resembled that of the reformers for theology and Scripture. With
respect to the relationship between science and the Bible, Bacon, among others,

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-6

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

argued for a “two books” approach. These were the book of nature and the book
of Scripture.

1.5.4 Bacon’s Two Books

Book of Nature
Also known as the book of God’s works, the natural world could be investigated by
science to discover God’s ways in it.
Book of Scripture
Also known as the book of God’s words, Scripture could be investigated to discover
God’s will and purpose for His people.

1.6 COPERNICAN REVOLUTION

1.6.1 Copernican Astronomy - Prelude to Galileo

Aristotelian /Ptolemaic Astronomy
Built on the astronomy of the classical Greco-Roman period which, in its turn, is
based on Babylonian and Egyptian astronomy. Key aspects of
Aristotelian/Ptolemaic astronomy, as it was interpreted in the late Medieval period
consisted of the following:
Authority, Tradition and Reason
Aristotle and Ptolemy were the authoritative texts. Although both these ancient
scientists had made observations, in the late medieval period the rationalistic
tradition was so strong that contrary observations were ignored.
An Eternal Cosmos
Aristotle believed that the heavens beyond the moon were eternal, unchanging,
and composed of distinctly different material to the changing earth. The eternal
nature of the heavens was not transferred across into the Medieval Christian
understanding, but the unchanging character of the heavens was.
A Central Earth
The earth was central, not only to classical astronomy, but also classical physics.
Circular motions
The circle was the perfect shape in classical thought. It was obvious therefore that
heavenly bodies would be both circular (or spherical) and move in circles.
See Fig 6.1 from Poole, M, Belief and Values in Science Education.
Alternative Systems
See Fig 6.6 from Poole (1995).
Copernicus - (1473-1542)
Copernicus suggested a central sun, but on purely rationalistic grounds; there was
no empirical evidence to support it. It had little going for it except apparent
simplicity.
Tycho Brahe – (1546-1601)
Tycho accepted the telescopic evidence that Mercury and Venus orbited the sun,
but believed that the sun still orbited the earth, as did the other planets.
Kepler
Kepler postulated elliptical orbits, in one of the most significant breaks with
classical astronomy after the abandoning of the geocentric universe.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-7

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

1.7 THE GALILEO CONTROVERSY

1.7.1 Introduction
Nineteenth century writers on science and Christianity such as Draper and White
used the Galileo debate as an example of their conflict model par excellence. The
reality is both more complex and more interesting. Arthur Koestler in his Galileo
biography Sleepwalkers observes,
The fame of this outstanding genius rests on discoveries he never made and on
feats he never performed. Contrary to statements in even recent outlines of
science, Galileo did not invent the telescope, nor the microscope: nor the
thermometer, nor the pendulum clock. He did not discover the law of inertia, nor
the parallelogram of forces or motions nor the sunspots. He made no contribution
to theoretical astronomy, he did not throw weights down from the leaning tower of
Pisa, and did not prove the truth of the Copernican system. He was not tortured by
the Inquisition, did not languish in its dungeons and he was not a martyr of
science.
The Galileo debate was initially a scientific debate with Aristotelian scientists. The
theological problem came later and was largely precipitated by Galileo’s cavalier
treatment of Pope Urban VIII. Koestler observes,
[Urban VIII] was the first Pope to allow a monument to be erected to him in his
lifetime. His vanity was indeed monumental and conspicuous even in an age which
had little use for the virtue of humility. His famous statement that he “knew better
than all the cardinals put together” was only equalled by Galileo’s that he alone
had discovered everything new in the sky. They both considered themselves
supermen and started on a basis of mutual adulation type of relationship which as
a rule comes to a bitter end.
The Galileo controversy can be divided into three phases.
1589 – 1610 - Scientific Controversy
Although known chiefly as an astronomer, Galileo (1564-1642) was notable also
as a physicist (see below). Galileo studied medicine at Pisa, but did not complete
his degree. He returned home and studied physics under a private tutor.
Galileo’s professional life included appointments at the universities of Padua and
Pisa, and as Philosopher to the Grand Duke of Florence. During his career from
1589–1633 Galileo was involved in 6 major controversies with colleagues. Most of
these involved his refutations of Aristotle, which aroused the antagonism of most
of his contemporaries. These controversies demonstrated Galileo’s abilities at both
debate and at antagonising his opponents in public controversy.
1611 – 1633 - Theological Controversy
Galileo’s 5th controversy in 1614 was over Copernican astronomy. The debate had
taken a theological twist owing to the introduction of Biblical arguments in defence
of geocentricity by Galileo’s opponents and Galileo’s use of hermeneutics to defend
himself. It led to him being given written orders that it could be neither defended
nor held. He avoided Copernicanism for the next 8 years, but in 1630 discussed
Copernicanism, as he thought, hypothetically, in his book Dialogue concerning the
two world systems. This book led to further accusations of Copernicanism and of
ridiculing pope Urban VIII, which led directly to his trial and conviction in 1633.
1633-1642 – Final Years
Galileo was placed under house arrest following his trial. This meant being
released into the custody of a friend and living in his house. Many of the
restrictions of his sentence were ignored or soon lifted. Later that year he moved
to his own home near Florence and continued to work on physics. Despite
suffering increasing blindness from 1637 Galileo continued his researches and died
in 1642.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-8

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

1.7.2 1589-1610 — Scientific Controversy

University Background
Pisa 1589-1592
During this period Galileo began to study physics. He began the first of his
disagreements with his Aristotelian contemporaries, most especially in the
field of mechanics.
Padua 1592-1610
Galileo’s appointment to the University of Padua over the head of an
Aristotelian rival was also a cause for controversy. This did not endear him
to his opponents. During this period Galileo began to investigate optics,
leading to more controversy. More important it led to experiments in lenses
for telescope making, and the first telescopic astronomical observations.
Florence - 1610
Appointed to a prestigious post as a “philosopher” (scientific adviser in
modern parlance) to the Duke of Florence, Galileo continued his
astronomical research. He also began publishing his results, which led to
the final controversy.
Contemporary Scientific Developments/Controversy
Supernova discovered
In 1572 and 1604 Tycho observed supernovae, new stars. The Chinese had
known these for millennia, but they had been ignored in the western world.
Kepler’s observations placed them among the fixed stars, challenging the
assumption about the unchanging heavens.
1609 Telescope and its discoveries
In rapid succession Galileo discovered with his telescope the moons of
Jupiter— proving that the earth was not always the centre of the universe,
sun spots— showing that the sun was not unblemished and changeless,
and the phases of Venus— strong evidence for a heliocentric astronomy.
Galileo also showed that Saturn had strange protuberances, indicating that
things in the heaven were not perfect circles or disks.
Comets
Tycho had also showed that comets were more distant that the moon. They
moved in strange and then unpredictable ways, further undermining
confidence in the eternal perfection of the heavens.
Character of Galileo
Aggressive, Antagonised opponents, “The Wrangler”
Galileo was a ruthless and aggressive debater. He not only offended his
enemies, but alienated those who might have been sympathetic. He also
was unprepared to admit mistakes, even when they were shown to him.
Populariser – Books in Italian widely read both for content and style
Galileo was a great populariser. He wrote in Italian for the ordinary person,
rather than the more learned Latin. This upset many contemporary
academics, just as modern popularisers such as Carl Sagan and Steven
Gould upset theirs.

1.7.3 1611-1633 — Theological Controversy

Acceptance and opposition
1611 Visit to Rome

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-9

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

Despite being controversial and his own worst enemy Galileo was well
accepted in his 1611 visit to the Jesuit College. This college was teaching
the Copernican system. He was also well received by Pope Paul V and
impressed Cardinal Berberini, who became Pope Urban VIII in 1623.
1611-1613 — Organised Resistance “Liga” - Colombe
Galileo had so antagonised his academic colleagues that several joined
together to form a conspiracy to discredit him. To do so they raised the
issue that his astronomical views were contrary to Scripture, in particular
that his view of the centrality of Earth undermined the authority of
Scripture. Galileo defended himself through judicious Biblical interpretation.
These were delicate times for such a practice.
Sensitivity of the times (Reformation and the Counter reformation and
Council of Trent 1545-1563)
Protestant threat
To the Catholic authorities the Protestant threat lay in the lay interpretation of
Scripture. If everyone interpreted the Bible as they wished, then there might be
no limit to the heresies that might be promulgated. Subsequent events have
shown this fear to be not entirely without substance. Any lay interpretation was
seen as an attack on the Church. Galileo offered a theological defence of his
position on three occasions.
Theological Debate
1613 - Liga
The first was in a letter to Castelli, a student of his, defending himself
against the verbal attacks on him.
1614 - Caccini Sermon
The second was in response to a sermon by Caccini attacking his
astronomy and claiming that the Bible clearly indicated that the earth was
fixed. In this Galileo argued theologically about the nature of Biblical
revelation.
1615 - Letter to Empress Christina
The most important of Galileo’s theological defences was his letter to the
Grand Duchess Christina. This is a key document in the relationship
between Christianity and Science. It had the following main points:
*The issue had been brought to the Roman court for the wrong reasons.
*Astronomical theories could not be matters of faith.
*The new cosmology was in harmony with biblical teaching if the Bible were
interpreted correctly by established principles (but not by Trent)
Some extracts from the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina
These indicate Galileo’s approach to science and scripture.
Regarding Scripture
The Holy Bible can never speak untruth, whenever its true meaning is
understood. But the meaning is not always obvious from the literal sense
as anyone can see in the Bible’s use of anthropomorphic terms for God’s
hands and feet and eyes. Such terms are inspired by the Holy Spirit in
order to accommodate them to the capacities of the common people, rude
and unlearned as they are.
Galileo and the Book of Nature
The Holy Bible and the Phenomena of Nature proceed alike from the Divine
Word … God can be known by Nature in His works - and by doctrine in His

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-10

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

revealed word. The Bible is written for the primary purpose of the salvation
of souls and the service of God.
Quoting From Cardinal Baronius
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven not how the heavens go.
Quoting From Augustine
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of
the stars and even their size ..., and this knowledge he holds to as being
certain from reason and experience. 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 show up
vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn ... If they find a Christian
mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him
maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to
believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the
hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?
1616 - Admonition by the Vatican
Cardinal Bellermine
The doctrine attributed to Copernicus that the earth moves around the sun
is contrary to Holy Scripture and therefore cannot be defended or held.
Galileo was formally admonished in the letter from Cardinal Bellarmine. In
it he was told that he was neither to hold nor defend the Copernican
system. Galileo followed this instruction for 8 years but in 1630 published
his book Dialogue concerning two world systems in which he presented
cogent arguments for the Copernican system. The book was published in
Italian for maximum circulation.
1623 Berberini becomes Pope Urban VIII
1630 Dialogue Published
In a style common to the time, the Dialogue consisted of a literary conversation
between two protagonists seeking to sway a third party. One person represented
the Copernican position, arguing with Galileo’s style and arguments, the other
presented the official papal position as that of the ordinary, or common sense
view. In a classical Latin dialogue this person was known as Simplicus, meaning
straight forward. In Italian this became Simplicito with the implication of
feeblemindedness. The Pope was furious, even though Simplicito carried the day.

1.7.4 1633- 1642 Final Years — Trial and Condemnation

Ecclesiastical concern over the Dialogue led to sales being halted and Galileo
summoned to appear before the Inquisition in 1633. He was accused of holding,
defending, and teaching Copernicanism in defiance of the church. Despite
conflicting evidence whether or not Galileo had been told not to teach
Copernicanism, the court considered that the Dialogue clearly defended it,
something that had been expressly forbidden. Galileo was told to acknowledge this
or face the consequences, most likely imprisonment. He acquiesced and signed a
confession, essentially an out-of-court settlement. The Dialogue was placed on the
index of prohibited books and Galileo placed under house arrest and
excommunicated. His excommunication was only lifted by the Vatican in 1992.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-11

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

1.8 17TH CENTURY SCIENCE – NEWTON AND THE MECHANISTIC

UNIVERSE
The Newtonian revolution delineates a major watershed in the history of science.
It marks the end of classical physical science that had dominated thought in
physics and astronomy for almost two millennia. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo
started the process in astronomy. Galileo and Kepler also began developing
mathematical physics and were important predecessors of Newton. Kepler, Galileo
and Newton showed the power of mathematics in describing the behaviour of the
physical world.
The rise of rationalistic, mechanistic philosophy in the tradition of Descartes
paralleled the development of the new physics. Indeed, the success of the new
physics appeared to lend empirical support to this philosophy. The mechanistic
world picture thus played a role in the rise of agnosticism, atheism, and deism.
A revolution of similar magnitude was the discovery of earth history. John Green
wrote in The Death of Adam (1961) that the change from a static and cyclic to a
dynamic and evolving world view was the most marked characteristic of the
transition from medieval to modern science. Accompanying this was recognition
that the same laws operated in the universe as on earth. This transition marked
the eclipse of Aristotle in physics, Ptolemy in astronomy, and Genesis in geology.
All this occurred in the 17th and 18th centuries. The 19th century saw the same
process in biology and palaeontology, where the Aristotelian view on the fixity of
species was overthrown by an evolutionary perspective. This is the subject of a
later chapter. The rise of the nebula hypothesis in the 19th and early 20th century
provides a further example.
Christian responses to these different developments were many. Initially some
attempted to develop a Biblical alternative, known as Hutchinsonianism, to
mechanistic physics. Natural theology rose later, and attempted to use the
rationalistic philosophy of Descartes and the new scientific discoveries to provide,
not only a rational basis for theology but outright proofs for the existence of God.
In the case of geology, the main issue was how to reconcile discoveries of an ever
increasing geological past with the text of Genesis. Christians proposed various
exegetical and hermeneutic schemes to resolve the problem.
The Clockwork Universe
Rise of Newtonian physics
Aristotelean & neo-platonic physics
Classical physics as understood in the middle ages was dominated by the
thought of Aristotle. It was rationalistic-speculative, there was little
empirical observation, and experiment was ignored. Key aspects included
the following. Terrestrial matter was made up of four elements (earth, air,
fire, and water). Celestial matter was made of a fifth element, the aether.
All things were arranged in a hierarchy in a concentric cosmos. Formless
matter was at the centre and matterless form on the outside. All things
could be classified into a small group of universal properties. Ironically,
Aristotle himself recognised the importance of observation, while many of
his followers did not. Aristotle made many important biological observations
in addition to his physical speculations. He can be called the greatest
biologist until Linnaeus in the 18th century.
Collapse of classical Greek physics
The rationalistic physics of Aristotle was consistently refuted by Galileo,
whose fiercest disputes were with the Aristotelian professors. Galileo
worked particularly in problems of mechanics, buoyancy, and optics. Like
Archimedes he was particular interested in the practical application of his
knowledge. The visible success of inventions and innovations such as the

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-12

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

pendulum clock, surveying instruments, and telescopes did much to cement

the superiority of the new physics over the old. Kepler also played an
important role, he disproved classical idealism, which saw the circle as
superior to the ellipse and thereby the natural motion of the heavens. His
studies of planetary motion showed that the planets moved in ellipses, not
circles. They disproved classical idealism, which saw the circle as superior
to the ellipse and thereby the natural motion of the heavens. His three laws
of planetary motion anticipated Newton.
Newton developed new mathematical tools (calculus) to describe physical
phenomena. He refined mechanics and optics to new precision. Newton also
invented telescopes and through application of gravitational theory
established the universal applicability of terrestrial physics. Newton thus
completed the process begun by Galileo and Kepler in demonstrating the
power of mathematics in describing the behaviour of the physical world.

1.8.2 Impact of Newtonian physics

Scientific
Newtonian physics transformed science and became the epitome of the scientific
enterprise. The success of Newtonian physics in predicting the existence of Uranus
and Neptune from the irregularities in the motions of other planets was perhaps its
greatest triumph.
Newtonian physics was superseded in the 20th by quantum theory and relativity,
but still provides a highly accurate way to describe and predict the behaviour of
physical objects. Refinements and elaborations of Newton’s physics continue to
provide the basis for modern mechanical, structural, and civil engineering. The
Newtonian vision also provided a great incentive to physical scientists studying
chemistry and electricity.
Metaphysical
Newton’s superb mathematical exposition of the behaviour of the physical world is
often linked to the rise of naturalism. Mathematics explained the world so well, so
the naturalists argued, that there was no need to invoke, or seek for, powers or
forces beyond the material.
It is certainly true that metaphysical naturalism, both agnostic and atheistic,
became more prevalent in the latter part of the 17th century. It is also true that
many Christians were concerned by the materialistic implications of Newtonian
philosophy. This partly gave rise to Hutchinsonianism (see below). Neither of these
metaphysical consequences were direct consequences of Newton’s own theology.
The success of mechanistic explanations in physics was perceived as powerful
confirmation of materialistic explanations of the world, laying the groundwork for
the metaphysical scepticism of the Enlightenment.

1.8.3 Christian responses

The faith of the founding physicists
Galileo’s faith has been discussed previously. Kepler was also strongly Christian
(Lutheran) in outlook, although modern believers would be surprised in his
practice of astrology and his leanings towards Pythagorean mysticism. Fascinated
by harmony, Kepler saw the relationships of the natural world as evidence of God’s
handiwork. Despite being embroiled in religious controversy — he disagreed with
both Catholics and Lutherans over the nature of the Communion—he appears to
have remained remarkably free of religious animosity. Newton was a devout, if
heterodox Protestant. His understanding of the relationship between God and His
world was theistic. Personal research led Newton to adopt Arianism, a fact he kept
hidden. His extensive Biblical research is far more voluminous than his science but
was little known until this century. Newton also followed the “two books”
approach, but he considered discussion of science and faith unprofitable. When

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-13

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

president of the Royal Society he banned any discussion of religious topics in the
Society.
Mosaic science
Not all Christians were comfortable with the mathematical science of Newton and
his contemporaries. Almost unknown today, the followers of John Hutchinson
(1674–1737) attempted to create a Bible-based alternative to Newtonian physics.
Hutchinsonianism gained a following amongst many educated people of the time,
including several Bishops, Peers of the Realm, and Samuel Johnson, but had died
out by the end of the 18th century.
Hutchinsonians objected to Newton on several grounds. These included the
“unscientific” concepts such as action at a distance (gravity), its supposed
association with Latitudinarianism and deism, and the superiority of a science built
on Scripture. The fundamental assumption of the latter was the belief that the
Hebrew text was philosophically true in every detail and that the language itself
contained the key to all knowledge. Their writings attempted to form a biblically
based science, that would help defend orthodox Christianity.
The Hutchinsonians failed for a combination of reasons including the inability of
the Bible to sustain a scientific superstructure and the success of Newtonian
physics. Ironically for defenders of orthodoxy, Hutchinsonians defended a self
sufficient rather than contingent universe and emphasised God’s transcendence as
against His immanence. This was very similar to the deism that they opposed. In
their attitude to science and their use of Scripture they resemble, in many ways,
the modern Creation Science movement.
Deism and theism
The rise of deism may reflect the strongly deterministic nature of Newtonian
science and the exclusion of the “God of the Gaps”. Much of the theology of the
enemies of Newtonianism was also conducive to deism, especially in the
separation of God from the world and the emphasis of the world as a self
contained machine.
Despite the popularity of deism, many Christians and scientists remained theistic
in their outlook. Indeed, the Newtonian revolution heightened the need to see God
as immanent as well as transcendent, and as the One who worked by natural law,
as well as by miracle.

1.8.4 17th Century British Scientists

These saw themselves as observing the ways of God in Nature (studying the book
of God’s works). They did not see themselves in opposition to faith. The Royal
Society was founded by such scientists. Unlike catholic Europe, Britain had a
positive Science/Faith climate. With time however, some came to see that
knowledge of God derived from the natural world was more reliable than
revelation. Some have been referred to already.
Francis Bacon— Two Books
Book of Nature and Book of Scripture. Finding out about the ways of God.
Church Sympathetic to Copernican Science
Wilkins Master of Trinity 1659 and Bishop of Chester 1668 was the foremost
Copernican proponent in Britain.
Royal Society — Sprat history 1667
Was founded by mainly Puritan Christians who saw themselves as exploring the
ways of God in Nature and directing their study to the glory of God and the benefit
of the human race.
Isaac Newton 1642-

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-14

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

His religious faith and theological writings have already been referred to. His
Principia was published in 1679 and marked both the end of Aristotolian physics
and the generation of the “mechanistic universe”. Its concepts generated two
directions in the Science/Religion debate: that of a universe with no need of God,
atheism, and that of a universe displaying the works of God, theism. Newton
remained in the latter group. In his regard for matters theological Newton can be
regarded as typical of his time and place. Indeed, Newton wrote more words on
theology than on science. However, much of his theology was not quite orthodox,
he was both Arian and Unitarian in his thinking.
John Ray 1691
The father of Botany, whose book Wisdom of God Manifested in the Work of
Creation was widely circulated and read.
Robert Boyle
As a further example of the close relationship between science and theology in the
minds of 17th century English scientists we have Robert Boyle. He established the
Boyle Lectures to consider the ways of God in Nature.
W Paley - Natural Theology
Paley’s Natural Theology — Evidences for the Existence of the Deity Collected from
the Appearances of Nature published in 1802 was to dominate the science scene in
Britain until well into the 19th Century.

1.9 NATURAL THEOLOGY

1.9.1 Development
Theology used for its utility value — to establish the need for God. To prove a
benevolent God. This was the purpose of the Boyle lectures. The first given by
Richard Bentley in 1691 was entitled “A refutation of atheism from the origin and
frame of the world”. This role is illustrated by a quote from Linnaeus in 1754
If the maker had furnished this globe, like a museum, with the most admirable
proofs of his wisdom and power; if this splendid theatre would be adorned in vain
without a spectator; and if Man the most perfect of all his works is alone capable
of considering the wonderful economy of the whole; it follows that man is made
for the purpose of studying the Creator’s works, that he may observe in them the
evident marks of divine wisdom.
Natural theology became the dominant spirituality of the deists. Rejecting Biblical
revelation, they attempted to base their faith on evidence for God in the natural
world. Because it was rational and scientific, it was considered that natural
theology was a truer road to knowledge of God than “corrupted” human texts.
Deists believed that God had created in the beginning, but did not intervene in the
world. Natural theology was also attractive to theists and semi deists, who saw in
it a powerful apologetic tool.

1.9.2 William Paley

Natural Theology dominated (particularly in Britain) the relationship between
science and theology during the 17th and 18th Centuries. It was successfully
promoted by William Paley. His Evidences for the Existence of the Deity published
in 1802 had enormous influence. It dominated Anglican Theology in late 18th and
early 19th Centuries.
Paley portrayed nature as a watch and God as a watchmaker. Each aspect of
nature was considered as a demonstration of the Deity — a proof of God as the
master watchmaker (designer), e.g. eye , bird’s wing etc. It also portrayed a static
creation, each creature being individually brought into being by a special act of
God.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-15

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

Many scientists were of course clergy, and science was stimulated enormously by
the search for ever more evidences of God’s design in Nature. Natural theology
declined as the deism to which it appealed declined towards the middle of the 19th
century. Classic natural theology, in the style of Paley also went into eclipse when
naturalistic accounts for the appearance of specific adapted organs such as the eye
appeared to be provided by natural selection. More recently modified versions of
natural theology have appeared in extrapolations from the apparent fine-tuning of
the universe. It has also reappeared in the “Intelligent design” movement, which
denies organic evolution and reinstates Paley.

1.10 THE ENLIGHTENMENT, DEISM AND ATHEISM

1.10.1 Weakness of Natural Theology

Contained the seeds of its own destruction — exploited by Hume 1779 in his
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Along with the purposefulness of nature
had to be added its apparent purposelessness on occasions. The problem of
natural evil made evident by the enormous death toll of the Lisbon earthquake
was particularly salutary.
Cannot prove God, must always assume God’s existence
By relying only on induction from scientific knowledge, natural theology
could only offer God as a hypothesis. The likelihood of that hypothesis
would wax and wane according to the evidence.
Removes a personal God
The deists denied revelation. By eliminating the God of the Bible who
reveals Himself to his people and saves them, they were left with an
emasculated religion of little personal substance beyond a vague
mysticism. The deist’s God was distant, impersonal, and powerless to act in
the real world.

1.10.2 Deism, Atheism

Deism the outcome of a mechanistic philosophy has two outcomes. as Pier
Maupertuis (Essai de Cosmologie 1756) observed
All the philosophers of our time belong to two sects. One group wishes to
subjugate nature to a purely material order and to exclude all intelligent principles
from it….. The others on the contrary, make constant use of final causes to
discover the views of the Creator, penetrating his intent in the smallest of
phenomena. According to the first group the universe could do without God.
According to the latter, the tiniest parts of the universe constitute repeated
demonstrations (of his being). His Power, Wisdom, and Goodness are painted on
the wings of butterflies and in every spider’s web.
Thus deism may, and in fact did, lead historically to both Atheism and Theism. To
European Rationalism and the Enlightenment, to English Natural Theology and
Paley’s Evidences. Deism and its mechanistic philosophy may therefore:
Go on and exclude God — It may then lead to Atheism.
If they were not able to prove the Deist’s God, they would be likely to lapse
into atheism. This is what happened in most cases. Atheism was more
attractive intellectually than the weak and distant God of the deists.
Go on and prove God — it may then lead to Theism.
If they were able to convince themselves of the existence of God there was
always the likelihood they would come to realise that God was active in
their lives. In this case they would become theists, especially Christian
theists if they came to believe the God of the Bible manifest in Jesus. In

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-16

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

fact both intellectual destinations are flawed, or at least the track to them
is flawed.
A mechanistic universe neither proves God nor removes the need for God. Paley’s
evidences affirm a God he believed in, and Laplace’s “no need of that (God)
hypothesis” simply disposes of a “God of the Gaps”.

1.11 THE AGE AND HISTORY OF THE EARTH

1.11.1 History of Geology

Principles of Stratigraphy
Lithostratigraphy
Serious study of geology began with Nicholas Steno (1638-86), the first to
elucidate the basic principles of stratigraphy. He also demonstrated beyond
reasonable doubt that fossils were of organic origin. Steno’s principles
allowed the lithostratigraphic correlation of rocks over large areas.
Biostratigraphy — fossil sequences
By the end of the 19th century natural philosophers had begun to recognise
that fossils always occurred in a particular sequence. This fossil or
biostratigraphic succession made possible the correlation of rocks over long
distances, even when rocks cropped out discontinuously or when
lithological changes had occurred.
Biostratigraphy provided the basis for the geological time scale. It also
showed that species were not eternal but appeared and became extinct
through geological time.
Processes Involved
Diluvialism
A diverse group of people through the 17th and 18th century interpreted
the earth in terms of Noah’s flood. These were the diluvialists, most of
whom were English Protestants. Diluvialists argued that the present
configuration of the earth was not its original one. Oceans, valleys, and
mountains were seen as imperfections absent on a world created perfect.
The original earth was a perfect sphere, imperfections were the results of
Noah’s flood. Fossils in rocks were the flood’s victims. Diluvialism fell out of
favour for two reasons. Firstly, nobody was able to construct a consistent
model for the rise and fall of the flood from Biblical data. Secondly, the
diluvialists themselves discovered an increasing body of evidence that
proved that the geological record was not the result of a single, world-wide
flood. Instead it was clearly the result of a wide range of processes
operating over a large, though indeterminate, period of time. By the early
19th century few diluvialists remained. Those that did were increasingly
isolated from the mainstream of geological research.
Neptunism and Plutonism/Vulcanism
Neptunism and plutonism were two rival theories that, in the late 18th
century, replaced diluvialism. Neptunists argued that the geological
succession was the result of precipitation out of a primordial ocean, even
for crystalline rocks such as granite. Plutonists did not deny the
sedimentary origin of many rocks, but argued that granitic and other
coarse crystalline rocks were the result of the crystallisation of melts deep
underground. The plutonists are commonly held to have “won” the debate,
but the neptunists also made many important contributions to geology and
mineralogy. The data they collected together reinforced the conclusions of
the diluvialists, that the geological record could not be adequately
explained by a single global event. Experiments by Buffon (1707-88) on

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-17

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

rates of cooling suggested that the earth had taken 74,832 years to cool
from an incandescent state to its present temperature.
Catastrophism
Detailed mapping in the British Isles and continental Europe showed a
consistent geological succession. Each consisted of several systems of rocks
defined by their characteristic fossils. Each system appeared separated by
an unconformity, signifying a major deformation and erosional event. The
systems came to be interpreted as representing separate creations, each
lasting epochs, and terminated by a global catastrophe. The deluge was
seen as the most recent of these. This interpretation of earth history was
thus known as catastrophism.
Catastrophism dominated geological thought, particularly in Britain. It
provided a fruitful and successful framework for the understanding and
researching of earth history for the first 30 years of the 19th century. Within
its framework, geologists such as Sedgewick, Murchison, Cuiver, and
Buckland, established the detailed geological succession over much of
Europe. Catastrophism collapsed for several reasons. One of these was that
the unconformities were not world wide in extent, but restricted to
particular areas.
Elsewhere, the transition between eras and epochs was gradational, or
marked by only one fossil assemblage replacing another. Another reason
was that geologists became better acquainted with sedimentary processes.
Deposits formerly attributed to catastrophies were recognised to be the
result of normal processes similar to those observable in many parts of the
world. An example of this was the widespread layer of boulders and gravel
found over much of northern Europe and North America. Catastrophists
initially attributed this stratum to the deluge. Subsequent work showed that
these deposits were due to glaciation.
Uniformitarianism
The concept of uniformitarianism is commonly associated with Lyell (1797–
1875). Other geologists, including Fleming, Scrope, and Lomonosov, were
also important in its inception. It replaced catastrophism as the dominant
interpretative framework for geology. Uniformitarianism assumed that the
geological record is the result of processes now operating. It arose because
of extensive study of modern processes of volcanism, deformation, and
sedimentation. These showed that contemporary processes were capable of
producing most of the observed features of the geological record, given
sufficient time. Uniformitarianism became a dogma, despite abundant
evidence for past processes different from any now operating, and for past
processes operating at different intensities and rates to the present. Such
dogmatic adherence to uniformitarianism proved an obstacle to the
acceptance of several new insights in geology. This has included the role
played by asteroid impacts and catastrophic flooding related to natural dam
bursts because they appeared to violate uniformitarianism. Some
uniformitarians, such as Lyell, were originally hostile to organic evolution
for the same reason.
Actualism
Modern geology appears to have outgrown specific interpretative
frameworks such as uniformitarianism. Instead, geologists seek to
determine, from the evidence of the rocks, the actual processes that have
formed them. All rocks are the result of the interaction of physical,
chemical, and, in some cases, biological processes. Different processes
result in different end products. This approach has been termed actualism.
This method is particularly important, as geology becomes increasingly the

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-18

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

study, not just of the earth, but of all solid bodies in the solar system and
beyond.

1.12 CHRISTIAN RESPONSES TO GEOLOGY

1.12.1 Christian Geologists

The proportion of active lay Christians and clergy who played a key role in the
development of geological science is remarkably high, even in an age where most
claimed nominal adherence to Christianity. Geological research really began with
the establishment of its basic principles by Steno. Clerics included Steno in Norway
and Italy, Burnet, Chambers, Buckland, Sedgwick, and Fleming in Britain. Active
lay Christians included Miller in Britain, and Gray, Dana, and Dawson in the United
States. All these attempted to relate their geological researches to their
interpretation of Genesis. Such interpretations have gone through three phases as
geological knowledge progressed.
Literalism — Biblicist input influencing science
Literalism assumes that the Bible contains technical data pertinent to earth
history. The Bible and geology are in accord and the geological evidence
interpreted appropriately. Diluvialism was constructed within a literalistic
framework. Some diluvialists (Whiston, Halley, Woodward, Catcott) were
theologically orthodox. Others (Descartes, Newton, Burnet) were not.
Literalism decreased in popularity as diluvialism was increasingly falsified.
Literalists were also unable to construct an internally consistent literal reading of
Genesis. By the second half of the 19th century it was held only by Christians on
the theological fringe, such as the Seventh Day Adventists. Modern proponents are
numbered among the various forms of “creation science”.
Concordism
Concordism is the reverse of literalism: Genesis is interpreted in the light of
geology. Three main variants have been proposed, the restitution theory, day/age
theory, and days of revelation theory. Concordism replaced literalism in the early
19th century and, in its various forms, was enthusiastically championed by
Sedgewick, Buckland, Miller, Chambers, Gray, and Dawson. Almost all were
conservative and evangelical theologians. Between about 1810 and 1960 many
held to concordism. There are still many adherents.
Three factors served to reduce its popularity. The first was the resurgent of
literalism in the guise of creation science among fundamentalist Christians. The
second was the failure of concordism to develop a consistent correspondence
between Genesis and geology. The third was the fear among fundamentalists that
theologians had compromised too much in allowing science to determine the
exegesis of Genesis.
Literary approach
The problems of concordism resulted in new approaches to the interpretation of
Genesis. These were concerned primarily with discovering the theological teaching
of Genesis within its cultural milieu. They did not attempt to use Genesis to
constrain science, or to try and find correspondence between Genesis and
geological history. These literary interpretations of Genesis focused on the
theological content of Genesis, rather than the scientific, because 300 years of
science had persuaded them that scientific readings of Genesis were not possible.
This new approach appears to be a fruitful one, and draws on a hermeneutic
tradition that extends as far back as Augustine.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-19

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 1 2009

1.12.2 Resurgence of Flood Geology

One of the most remarkable aspects of the relationship between Christianity and
science in the last 40 years has been the reappearance of Young Earth Creationism
(YEC) and flood geology in mainline denominations. Previously found mainly in
fringe groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists, flood geology was reintroduced
to other Christian groups in 1961 with the publication of The Genesis Flood by
Whitcomb and Morris. Since then YEC has become the default position on science,
faith, and the interpretation of genesis in many evangelical and fundamentalist
denominations. Indeed, for many it has become the hallmark of orthodoxy. This is
ironic because in their approach to Scripture and to science YEC is typically
unorthodox. Nor has it successfully answered the problems that led to YEC and
flood geology being abandoned in the 18th century.

1.13 REFERENCES

Brooke, JH, 1991, Science and Religion, Some Historical Perspectives, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Brooke, JH, 1996, ‘Science and theology in the Enlightenment’, in Richardson, WM and
Wildman, WJ (eds), 1996, Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue, Routledge,
New York, pp. 7-28.
Clarke, JDA, 1996, Plumbing Time’s Abyss — A Christian Response to Geology, Zadok
Paper S79.
Grant, E., 1986, ‘Science and Theology in the Middle Ages’, in Lindberg, DC and Numbers,
RL (eds), God and Nature, University of California Press, Berkeley), pp 49-75.
Hooykaas, R, 1972, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Hummel, CE, 1986, The Galileo Connection, Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove.
Lindberg, DC, 1986, ‘Science and the Early Church’, in Lindberg, DC and Numbers, RL
(eds), God and Nature, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 19-48.
Peters,T, Muzaffar Iqbal, M, Haq, SN, 2002, God, Life and the Cosmos: Christian and
Islamic Perspectives, Ashgate, UK.
Poole, M, 1995, Belief and Values in Science Education, Open University Press, Bucks., Ch
6.
Russell, CA., 1985, Cross-Currents. Interactions between Faith and Science, Intervarsity
Press, Leicester, UK.
Young, DA, 1987, ‘Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (part 1)’, Westminster Theological
Journal 49: 1-34.
Young, DA, 1987, ‘Scripture in the hands of geologists (part 2)’, Westminster Theological
Journal 49: 257-304.
Young, DA, 1995, The Biblical Flood, Paternoster Press, UK.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke and Allan J Day 1-20

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

Chapter 2 DARWIN AND THE AFTERMATH

Science and Faith in the 19th and the 20th Centuries

Allan J Day

Author: Allan J Day 2-1

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

CONTENTS – CHAPTER 2
Chapter 2 DARWIN AND THE AFTERMATH .............................. 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................. 2-3
2.1.1 Darwin and The Origin Of Species .................................................. 2-3
2.1.2 Darwin and the aftermath ................................................................. 2-3
2.2 BACKGROUND TO DARWIN ............................................. 2-3
2.2.1 18th Century Geology and the Age of the Earth........................ 2-3
2.2.2 Early 19th Century Background....................................................... 2-4
2.3 EARLY DARWIN AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES ............... 2-5
2.3.1 Background and training.................................................................... 2-5
2.3.2 The Beagle Journey 1831-1836....................................................... 2-5
2.3.3 Malthus and Population Control....................................................... 2-5
2.3.4 Alfred Wallace........................................................................................ 2-5
2.3.5 The Origin of Species - 1859............................................................ 2-5
2.4 RESPONSES TO DARWIN ................................................ 2-6
2.4.1 The British Association Debate 1860 ............................................. 2-6
2.4.2 Scientific Responses ............................................................................ 2-7
2.4.3 Theological Responses........................................................................ 2-7
2.5 DARWIN’S 20TH CENTURY LEGACY................................. 2-8
2.6 ANTI-EVOLUTION MOVEMENTS IN THE 20TH Century ..... 2-9
2.6.1 Fundamentalism and its 20thC History .......................................... 2-9
2.6.2 1925 Scopes trial Tennessee.......................................................... 2-10
2.6.3 Popularisation of antievolution in USA ........................................ 2-10
2.6.4 1957 Sputnik and its effect on US education............................ 2-10
2.6.5 1961, Morris and Whitcomb — The Genesis Flood.................. 2-10
2.6.6 1982 Act Defining Creation Science as religion........................ 2-11
2.6.7 Intelligent Design(ID) ....................................................................... 2-11
2.7 THE NEW PHYSICS........................................................ 2-11
2.7.1 Einstein and Relativity ...................................................................... 2-12
2.7.2 Bohr and Complementarity ............................................................. 2-12
2.7.3 Indeterminacy ..................................................................................... 2-12
2.7.4 Quantum Theory................................................................................. 2-12
2.7.5 Chaos ..................................................................................................... 2-12
2.7.6 Cosmology ............................................................................................ 2-13
2.7.7 New Natural Theology....................................................................... 2-13
2.8 NEW AGE RELATIVISM.................................................. 2-13
2.9 REFERENCES................................................................. 2-14

Author: Allan J Day 2-2

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.1.1 Darwin and The Origin Of Species

Darwin and The Origin of Species dominates the science/faith debate in the
19thCentury. The Origin of Species was published in 1859 after a long gestation
period. The Huxley, Wilberforce debate at the British Association meeting was
held on June 30th 1860 in Oxford.
These two events are commonly perceived as a simple contest between
enlightened science and outdated religion. The truth is much more complex as
recent historical evidence has made clear. They need to be seen in a broader
context therefore, in relation to the social, political and religious scene in 19thC
Victorian England.

2.1.2 Darwin and the aftermath

Darwin’s theory of natural selection was variously received as an affront to
creation — a new “world view”, or alternatively as an evidence of God’s
sovereignty over nature. Its basic scientific tenets were however largely ignored
by many scientists particularly by prominent Christian physical scientists such as
Kelvin and Clerk Maxwell and also by many prominent religious spokesmen such
as Spurgeon.
The June 30th 1860 debate was not reported in the press at the time and has
taken on a life of it’s own in the hands of those who were engaged in a struggle
for hegemony in 19thC England. There was neither universal acceptance of
Darwinism by the scientific community in the late 19thC nor universal rejection by
the theological community, but rather a range of views expressed on both sides.
Darwinism however, was often exploited by those with a variety of political and
social reform ideas — ideas as diverse as Marxism, exploitative capitalism and
liberal humanism. Such promotion was often carried out without the blessing of
Darwin himself. It is necessary therefore to examine the historical context for the
arrival of Darwin’s theory on the world stage and also the variety of perceptions
and reactions that resulted from it.

2.2 BACKGROUND TO DARWIN

2.2.1 18th Century Geology and the Age of the Earth
Archbishop Ussher and a Young Earth
Ussher, who was Archbishop of Armagh and a notable scholar, had arrived at an
estimate for the age of the earth and of a date for creation, by appropriate
“scientific” and literary research. His views were almost universally accepted in
the 17thC. They represented the best of 17thC scholarship and his dates were
enshrined in the margin of many editions of the King James Bible. Creation was
considered to occur in 4004 B.C and there was no reason to doubt this on the
basis of the contemporary science.
18th Century Developments in Geology
The 18thC. however saw a revolution in understanding of the age of the earth,
brought about by the activity of a variety of earth scientists (Buffon, Hutton, Lyell
and others), who established from both fossil and rock strata evidence that the
earth was of much greater antiquity and that the processes involved were the
result of progressive changes resulting from processes that could be observed
today (uniformitarian geology). These findings are described more fully in
Chapter 1.

Author: Allan J Day 2-3

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

The result of these developments was a general acceptance of the concept of an

old earth with a long history that made evolutionary development feasible. Lyell’s
Uniformitarian Geology became the basis for geology in the 19thC and his
Principles of Geology (1830-33), first published in 1830, the standard geological
work and also the valued companion of Darwin on his historic “Beagle Journey”.

2.2.2 Early 19th Century Background

19thC Establishment
The early 19thC saw a growing professionalism in science with geology and later
biology becoming independent scientific disciplines. Ecclesiastical control of
science, and education generally, was however in the hands of an Anglican
establishment most of whom had a classical non scientific background and
training. Non-Anglicans were excluded from the Universities. This hegemony was
resented by many non-conformist professionals who saw established religion as
inhibiting scientific development. The prevailing theology was natural theology -
using science to prove God.
Early 19thC Theology
This was dominated by William Paley (1743-1806) and Natural Theology. His
book, Natural Theology - Evidences for the Existence and Attributes of the Deity
first published in 1802 and repeatedly republished throughout the 19thC, set the
scene. The argument from Design envisaged God as the divine watchmaker and
every variation in nature was exploited as an evidence of design and of special
creation by a beneficent Creator. The earth was envisaged as a static unchanging
earth with each element and species owing its creation to a special act of God.
Darwinism changed all that and the struggle was therefore often determined by a
resistance to changing concepts of nature not so much to a changing concept of a
creating God.
Climate of Dissent
There was also a climate of dissent arising from the enlightenment. Vestiges of
the Natural History of Creation was published anonymously by Robert Chambers
in 1844 and was met by a shocked, but nevertheless popular reaction. Chambers
used progressionist geology and evolutionary biology (which did not arise with
Darwin) to provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the earth and the
evolution of life including man. It preceded the Origin of Species and set the tone
for the reception of Darwinism (and also for some of Darwin’s hesitancy to
publish). The Romantic movement sought to promote nature, not as a
mechanism but as an organism — Mother nature — bringing in pantheistic
naturalistic overtones.
Pre Darwinian Evolution
It needs to be realised that Darwin did not originate the concept of evolution.
What he did was to provide evidence for a feasible mechanism — Natural
selection.
Erasmus Darwin
Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin in the 18thC. had suggested evolution, a
concept of progressive change, as a possible process to explain living things.
Lamarck
Lamarck, the French Biologist, had also promoted evolution and suggested as a
possible mechanism the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Unlike Darwin
however he was unable to sustain his ideas by experimental evidence.

Author: Allan J Day 2-4

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

2.3 EARLY DARWIN AND THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES

2.3.1 Background and training

Darwin was born in 1809 into a well known and well endowed family. He was the
son of Robert Darwin a rich Shrewsbury doctor and related by both marriage and
descent to the Wedgewoods. His early intentions to enter medicine were
truncated by his departure from Edinburgh University after seeing only two
operations, and his training for the Anglican ministry at Cambridge was thwarted
by his consuming interest and diversion into natural history. Although he found
Paley’s “Natural Theology” fascinating, his interests lay more in collecting
biological specimens and in field trips with Adam Sedgwick the Professor of
Geology and Henslow the Professor of Botany. Henslow suggested that Darwin
join HMS Beagle—which was about to sail on a survey mission in 1831—as a
companion to its Captain, Robert Fitzroy.

2.3.2 The Beagle Journey 1831-1836

The Beagle journey lasted five years, not two as originally planned, and was the
turning point in Darwin’s career. Darwin collected specimens that depicted the
enormous diversity of living things. He was fascinated by the diversity of species
that existed in geographically separated areas such as the Galapagos Islands. He
saw no validation of special creation, but rather of a process that promoted
diversity in separated communities.

2.3.3 Malthus and Population Control

In 1838 shortly after returning home Darwin read Thomas Malthus’s controversial
book Essays on Population Control. It was a picture of the survival of the fittest in
a world faced with a population explosion. The population was increasing more
rapidly than was the ability of the environment to support it. The resultant
struggle for existence against the enemies of famine and disease etc. formed
both a basis for the competitive industrial society and the embryo mechanism for
Darwin’s Natural Selection.

2.3.4 Alfred Wallace

Darwin however delayed publishing his conclusions. He recognised that they
would not receive a good response in the theological climate (and scientific
climate) of natural theology with its concept of a static creation and of special
creation of individual species. His delay was also conditioned by his struggle with
the implications for naturalism that his theory clearly had, as well as for the
religious sensibility of his wife, Emma, who was a devout Christian. He was
eventually forced into publication by the very similar conclusions regarding
“natural selection” arrived at by Alfred Wallace in 1858. This finally goaded him
into publication, firstly in a joint paper with Wallace and then in the Origin of
Species which appeared in 1859. It sold out the first day.

2.3.5 The Origin of Species - 1859

The Origin of Species presented the data Darwin had collected, both in his voyage
on the Beagle, and in his researches since, in support of his theory of the
mechanism of evolution — natural selection. It is important to point out that
Darwin’s theory was not the theory of evolution — that had been previously
suggested. His genius however was to present a feasible mechanism to support
evolution as a concept. He demonstrated the capacity for both overpopulation and
of variation in biological species and also of the survival of those variants that
were best fitted to survive in hostile and competitive environments. This was his
theory of “Survival of the fittest” although it was not Darwin who labeled it as

Author: Allan J Day 2-5

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

such. He recognised and considered many of the objections to his theory and
discussed them fully in the “Origin”. He had no mechanism to account for either
the generation of variation or of its fixation in succeeding generations. That was
to await the arrival of Mendel and genetics. He also had no concept of the time
span now known to be involved. This was to await the radioactive dating of the
mid 20thC. Thus many of the objections foreseen by Darwin have been eliminated
by subsequent work. His contribution is therefore all the more remarkable.

2.4 RESPONSES TO DARWIN

The responses to Darwin need to be seen in the light of the context of the times.
It was not a debate between progressive science and outdated religion as
commonly perceived. Darwin’s theory was exploited by those like Huxley who
wished to use it to attack the ruling ecclesiastical establishment, or by Spencer
who wished to promote a social theory of human progress, long since debunked.
It did however have naturalistic overtones that were recognised and debated and
needed to be taken seriously, but it also could be seen as it was by many
Christians, particularly by Calvinist conservatives, as an example of God’s activity
and sovereignty in the world.

2.4.1 The British Association Debate 1860

It was not surprising that the establishment theologians should react to the
attack on natural theology implicit in Darwin’s theory. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop
of Oxford, a High Churchman and a Paley “natural theologian”, who was by no
means ignorant of current science, was an early opponent. He was prompted by
Cambridge anatomist, Robert Owen, a notable special creationist and also a
member of the ruling culture. They were prize targets for Huxley, a rising
biologist excluded from church based Universities and espousing naturalistic
views. It was seen as a chance to oppose and destroy the church‘s grip on
science. Darwin was caught up in this politicking but was a very reluctant
contributor. Huxley was portrayed as “Darwin’s Bulldog”.
The debate took place on June 30th 1860 at the British Association meeting in
Oxford. It was not reported in the press and the commonly reported view is that
published by Huxley some years after the event. It is one of complete humiliation
of the “ignorant and bigoted” Wilberforce at the hands of the enlightened scientist
Huxley. It is from this report that the widely known jibe about “rather having an
ape for a grandfather than an ignorant and bigoted bishop” is drawn. All good
publicity stuff for Huxley’s campaign against the church’s hegemony. There are
reasons to believe that the events were somewhat different, that Wilberforce
presented a much more intellectual case, prompted by Owen and that Huxley’s
prominence was not as he indicated. Hooker claims himself as the major
contender, while the supposed main event itself seems to have been only a small
component of the proceedings. Draper (who was later to write the influential
polemic history against the Roman Church and science) was a preliminary and
very boring prelude to the Huxley/Wilberforce exchange.
The whole reporting of the Debate was part of a very effective publicity campaign
waged by the scientist agnostics against ecclesiastical control of the universities
and culminating in the publication of J.W.Draper’s History of the Conflict between
Religion and Science (1875) and Cornell University’s founder A D White’s A
History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1895). Both of
these histories are now discredited. Huxley and his companions used the Darwin
issue to discredit the church and to promote their agenda. This was further
served by their imitation of the church in the development of a “church scientific”,
in the events of the X Club and even in the use of Darwin’s funeral in
Westminster Abbey against the wishes of the family as the final assault (See
Russell 1995).

Author: Allan J Day 2-6

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

2.4.2 Scientific Responses

As indicated above, Darwin recognised that there were many scientific objections
to Natural Selection. Nevertheless his theory received good support from
scientists. However there were some natural scientists who were not convinced.
It was only with the 20thC. and the development of Neo Darwinism that scientific
support for natural selection became part of scientific dogma. It was not easy to
dissociate the overtones of naturalism from Darwinism and this is still the case
today in both the scientific and theological responses.
Regarding science and faith in the !9th and 20th Centuries, see Russell (1989).
Pro Darwin
Huxley and his colleagues of the X Club saw Darwinism as a clear example of
naturalism. Their espousal went well beyond the scientific aspects of natural
selection. They adopted a positivist view of science and saw Darwinism as an
alternative explanation of Creation, denying any role for a Creator. Thus, for
Huxley etc., Darwinism moved from science to metaphysics. As indicated above
this stance also had political aspects in their struggle for hegemony in Mid 19thC
England. Asa Gray was the most prominent biologist in North America in the mid
19thC, Professor of Botany at Harvard and a friend and advisor of Darwin, and he
was also an evangelical Christian. He saw no threat to Christian theism from the
theory of natural selection and wrote frequently about both the scientific and
Christian aspects of Darwinism. He was a correspondent and supporter of Darwin
from before the publication of the “Origins”.
Anti Darwin
Louis Agassiz (1806-1873) was a French Protestant geologist and zoologist who
came to the USA in 1846. He brought a natural history that was based on
catastrophism and a series of separate creations. He persistently opposed
Darwinism in the USA. His stance was seen by his popular churchgoing audience
as a defence of Biblical as well as scientific creationism. He was not however
influenced by theological presuppositions and was never associated with
organised religion. His reactionary views on racism and slavery made many
orthodox Christians uneasy. Although he was a gifted teacher his many students
failed to follow his anti Darwin position. William Dawson (1807-1899) was a
Canadian Presbyterian and a highly acclaimed geologist at McGill University in
Montreal. He occupied the Geology Chair at McGill and was one of the developers
of that university as both a scientific and secular institution. He carried his
objections to Darwinism throughout his career and was frequently quoted by
antievolutionists.
Physical Scientists
Far from being agnostic many of the most prominent physical scientists of the
late 19th Century were devout Christians. They included Faraday, Joule, Clerk
Maxwell and Lord Kelvin. They had little to say about Darwinism. They were
certainly not part of any anti-Christian science movement that promoted a conflict
approach based on science.

2.4.3 Theological Responses

There was certainly no united opposition to Darwinism amongst theological
opinion on either side of the Atlantic. Some like Hodge saw Darwinism as
naturalism and as atheism. Others like McCosh, also from Princeton, espoused
Darwinism as an example of God’s activity in Creation.

Author: Allan J Day 2-7

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

Pro Darwin
The pro-Darwin stance taken by many Christians often came from those with
widely different theology. In Victorian England liberal and moderate spokesmen
were prominent in their support. Charles Kingsley the author and Anglican
clergyman wrote in support of Darwinism glorifying a Creator “who made things
make themselves”. He was a correspondent of both Darwin and Huxley. Frederick
Temple who later became Archbishop of Canterbury spoke positively of evolution
in his university sermon on the day following the June 30th, 1860 debate. More
liberal theologians often exploited Darwinism to include Spencer’s social
Darwinism and to support a view of humanity that included social progress. On
the other hand many conservatives in both Scotland and the USA found in
Darwinism an example of God’s hand that denied the prevailing deism and semi-
deism and asserted a Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty and activity in
creation. These included prominent spokesmen such as George Wright of Oberlin
College and James McCosh of Princeton, as well as influential Scottish theologians
such as Iverach. See Moore (1979). The theological reaction to Darwinism was far
from the universal rejection suggested by the popular press.
Anti Darwin
Apart from the emotive reaction of a variety of biblical literalists there was an
informed and concerned response from a number of influential conservative
theologians. The most effective of these was Charles Hodge, Principal of Princeton
and perhaps the most influential conservative theologian in the USA. His closely
argued book What is Darwinism concludes that “it is atheism”. Hodge
distinguished three aspects of evolution: the concept of evolution, the scientific
concept of natural selection itself and the concept of natural selection without
design. He had no argument to make against the first two but only about the
third. His opposition was therefore against naturalism which he saw to be
represented by Darwinism as it was promoted.
Neutral Responses
Many in Victorian England were content to ignore Darwinism and to oppose only
its exploitation by social theorists etc., no comment being made about the merits
of Darwinism as a scientific theory. The most popular preacher of the late 19thC.
was Charles Spurgeon, whose London congregation exceeded 12,000 each
Sunday, and whose sermons were speeded across the Atlantic and published in
the secular press in the USA the following week. He rarely commented on
Darwinism and when he did it was to address theories derived from it, not the
theory of natural selection itself. He was content to let the scientists decide their
matters on scientific grounds. It was a wise approach that could well be emulated
today by many of his contemporary admirers. It is apparent that the dispute
about Darwinism in the late 19thC was a debate about opposing world views, not
about a conflict between science and faith. Many saw Darwinism from a positivist
perspective, as more than science, and used Darwin’s theory to promote a
naturalistic world view. This was rightly opposed by theological opinion that
espoused a theistic world view with God as Creator and Sustainer. Other
theological opinion could see Darwinism as consistent and indeed supportive of a
theistic world view and had no problem with embracing its strictly scientific claims
(see Moore, 1979).

2.5 DARWIN’S 20TH CENTURY LEGACY

The embers of the 19thC. debate about Darwinism are still glowing, and in some quarters
bursting into flame, but the issues are still the same. There is a need to distinguish
between the debate about differing world views, which is not a scientific debate and the
debate about the merits of Darwinism as a scientific mechanism to explain biology. What
has changed in the 20thC however is the mounting evidence in support of Neo-Darwinism

Author: Allan J Day 2-8

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

and the universal acceptance of the theory by the 20thC. professional biological
community. Amongst this community however, are the “descendants” of Huxley, who
still wish to use Darwinism with its convincing scientific credentials to promote an
agnostic or atheistic world view. Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most outspoken and
widely known contemporary exponent. His unquestioned communication skills and
excellent description of the scientific picture of evolution hide his confusion of science
with metaphysics and his promotion not so much of evolution as science, but of a
naturalistic world view. Amongst the professional scientific community are also those
who have no problem with holding both a theistic world view and an acceptance of
evolution as “theistic evolution”1. They see evolution and neo Darwinism as the most
convincing mechanism to explain God’s activity in nature. Despite this there is still an
active anti evolution movement which has emerged in the late 20thC. as the Creation
Science Movement. While contending for a creationist world view they see this as
inconsistent with any acceptance of scientific evolution. A better understanding of the
19thC debate helps to put this in context. In many respects the issues have been
addressed and can helpfully be reviewed if Christianity is not to be considered anti
science and obscurantist.

2.6 ANTI-EVOLUTION MOVEMENTS IN THE 20TH Century

2.6.1 Fundamentalism and its 20thC History

Conservative Christianity was not only affected in the 19thC by the scientific
naturalism debate but also saw the biblical criticism movement as an increasing
threat to biblical authority and supernatural Christianity. As indicated above, the
reaction to Darwinism was somewhat mixed in the USA, but by the end of the
19thC and until the mid 1920’s it was not a large issue. In any case Darwinism as
a mechanism was having its struggles in the scientific realm until the genetic
basis for variation and hereditary etc. was determined and later evidence brought
about its general acceptance.
The fundamentalist movement was a specifically American phenomenon set up in
the first two decades of the 20thC. It was concerned to preserve the essentials,
the fundamentals, of orthodox Christianity and numbered among its founders and
supporters many of the important conservative theologians of North America
including the influential Princeton School. Their concern was to maintain the
essential doctrines of the deity of Christ, the Incarnation, the Resurrection and of
Biblical Authority in the face of liberal assaults. Special Creation was never a
tenet of the early founders. In fact, some of the leaders of the Fundamentalist
movement accepted Darwinian evolution as an acceptable method of Creation,
e.g. B.B. Warfield, the Princeton theologian, who championed Biblical inerrancy in
his theological writing. Even those who had anti-evolution views (and these
became more vocal in the 1920’s) accepted an old earth and some form of
“Scriptural geology”. Thus although many of the early fundamentalists were
unable to accept evolution as a method of creation, few had any difficulty with an
old Earth and uniformitarian geology. This remained the case until the strict
biblical literalism of the Creation Science Movement appeared in 1961 and came
to dominate the anti-evolution agenda (see Berry, 1988).
After the first world war the social, moral and political position in the USA was
blamed on the theory of evolution. Now the anti-evolution stance became a mark
of the fundamentalist movement and political activism to prevent its propagation
was involved. William Jennings Bryan was the high profile leader of this political

1
Bishop Antje Jackelen, Lutheran Bishop of Lund in Sweden, in Theology and Science Vol 5
(2), July 2007, p. 151, argues against using the term theistic evolution and instead encourages the
development of a theology of evolution.

Author: Allan J Day 2-9

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

movement. Three times presidential candidate and an outspoken fundamentalist,

he led the legal battle to prevent the teaching of evolution in schools.

2.6.2 1925 Scopes trial Tennessee

In 1925, the law in Tennessee, as well as in a number of other Southern States,
prohibited the teaching of evolution in schools. A challenge was mounted by civil
liberties contenders and Scopes, the deliberately offending teacher, was charged
and convicted under the anti evolution statutes. However the case was made into
a national event with Bryan acting for the prosecution and Clive Darrow, a
prominent civil liberties lawyer, for the defence. Although the case was lost, the
battle for removal of the restrictive statute was not. Bryan and the anti evolution
case was ridiculed and eventually the anti evolution statutes prohibiting the
teaching of evolution were removed. There was, however, continued silent
pressure for removing offending material from textbooks and sanitizing, as it
were, the teaching of biology. Thus while evolution was permitted, it was actively
opposed and covertly restricted in a conservative USA.

2.6.3 Popularisation of antievolution in USA

There was considerable support in the USA for a campaign against evolution. This
was mounted in the public arena by two self styled scientist preachers, Harry
Rimmer who had a considerable fundamentalist following in the 1930’s, and
George McCready Price. Rimmer adopted an old earth anti evolution, without a
strict biblical literalism as did most of the anti evolutionists of his day. McCready
Price on the other hand, resorted to a strict biblical literalism and a flood geology
that arose initially from a vision to Ellen White the founder of Seventh Day
Adventism, from which tradition Price emerged. He supported his interpretation
and his science by a somewhat bizarre geology that returned in part to the
diluvialism that had been discarded by the scientific community 100-150 years
before. He was not taken seriously by the geological community, but his ‘Creation
Science’ has persisted in the Creation Science Movement founded by Henry Morris
in the 1960’s.

2.6.4 1957 Sputnik and its effect on US education

The humiliating defeat of the USA by the Soviets in the space race, marked by
the successful launch of the first manned satellite, goaded US education into a
rethink of science education policy. This resulted in a much more aggressive
approach to modern biology in schools. Evolution was now taught actively in
schools, with non-sanitized text books instead of the half hearted compromise
that had prevailed.

2.6.5 1961, Morris and Whitcomb — The Genesis Flood

A reaction to this action was the publication of a book that was to galvanise the
antievolution sentiment in the USA and elsewhere. It was the much reprinted
Genesis Flood by two anti evolutionists — Henry Morris, a hydraulics engineer,
and John Whitcomb an Old Testament teacher at a small conservative college.
They used the young earth flood geology of George McCready Price to present
and document a strict literalist interpretation of Genesis and to launch a so called
“creation science” to support this interpretation. The movement has been
extremely successful in convincing over 40% of the US population of the truth of
their views, despite the clear testimony of the professional scientific community.
The movement, as early 20thC movements before it, has been active in seeking to
establish its position by legal means, calling for the mandatory teaching of
Creation Science in schools as an alternative to evolution.

Author: Allan J Day 2-10

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

2.6.6 1982 Act Defining Creation Science as religion

Statutes were enacted in several US States mandating the teaching of “Creation
Science” along with evolution in state schools. The Arkansas State Act 590 was
contested and overturned in a celebrated case in 1982. Creation Science was
judged to be a religion and not science and therefore inadmissible in the US
Education System for science classes. Legal action in relation to the teaching of
evolution in schools continues to be pursued actively in the US Southern states.
In 2000 in Kansas laws were enacted to make it non obligatory to examine
evolution in biology examinations. Other States are pursuing similar actions. As in
the 19thC debates, the issues have been confused. As was evident in the Darwin
debate of 100 years ago there was a failure by many of those rightly seeking to
maintain a theistic world view to recognize that creationism is not opposed to the
scientific theory of natural selection; or of failing to understand that the truth of
any scientific theory needs to be decided on criteria that are acceptable on
scientific grounds and not on any presupposition based on a biblical
interpretation. The conflict between science and religion suggested by the long
evolution debate does not represent any intrinsic conflict between science and
faith but simply a conflict between differing interpretations of the Genesis record.
A recent historical overview of the situation has been provided by Frame (2009,
Chaps 10 & 11).

2.6.7 Intelligent Design(ID)

Frame (2009, Chap. 12) covers the recent development of intelligent design (ID)
and the legal ramifications within the USA. The issue came to a head in 2005 in
the much publicised court case in Pennsylvania, Kitzmiller et al versus the Dover
School District.
The legal action originated in a decision of the School Board to direct Year
9 biology teachers to question the scientific basis of evolution… Teachers
were told to explain that ‘the theory [of evolution] is not a
fact…..Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs
from Darwin’s view…’ After a six-week hearing, United States District
Court Judge John Jones III ruled in December 2005 that Intelligent Design
was a religious concept and that it could not be taught in science classes
as an alternative to the theory of evolution. While noting that Darwin’s
theory was imperfect, Judge Jones went on to say: “the fact that a
scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should
not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable hypothesis grounded in
religion into the school classroom”. (Frame, 2009, p. 201).
In an article in The Melbourne Anglican (Day, Sept. 2005, p. 15), the author
explains why ID is flawed scientifically, philosophically and theologically. It is
flawed philosophically because it confuses metaphysics (religious belief) with
science. It is flawed scientifically because it proposes a ‘secondary cause’ that
cannot be tested scientifically. Finally, it is flawed theologically because the god of
ID is a ‘god of the gaps’, not the Christian God of the bible or of the creeds. It
sells God short – a God who gets smaller with every advance of science.

2.7 THE NEW PHYSICS2

At the end of the 19th century, Newtonian physics with its deterministic universe was the
dogma of physics. The created universe was thought to be deterministic and predictable.
But quantum physics changes this. The physical world had become relative,

2
See Chapter 6 for more detailed discussion of the ‘New’ Physics.

Author: Allan J Day 2-11

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

unpredictable, holistic. It marked a "quantum shift" in the way the world of nature could
be viewed.

2.7.1 Einstein and Relativity

The speed of light was found to be a constant, not changing with the speed of the
light source. From this starting point, Einstein showed that there is no universal
time scale. Different observers measure time differently. However, the term
"relativity" can mislead, since Einstein's theory is completely deterministic. His
later "general relativity" extended these ideas to accelerated bodies, and
interpreted gravitation as a distortion of the framework of space and time near
massive bodies.

2.7.2 Bohr and Complementarity

Radioactive atoms decay at random times, though the rate of decay is
characteristic of the element concerned. While light travels as a wave motion, its
interaction with matter happens in discrete amounts called "quanta", whose size
depends on the frequency of the light, as e.g. in Einstein's description of the
photoelectric effect. Particles of matter also have observed wave properties. Both
wave and particle descriptions seem unavoidable. Bohr proposed that wave and
particle descriptions are "complementary", each being appropriate in its domain.

2.7.3 Indeterminacy
Since "particles" have wave properties, the position and velocity of a "particle"
cannot both be measured with complete precision. If one is measured precisely,
then the other cannot be measured at all. Heisenberg's Indeterminacy principle
formulates this. However, the usual "Copenhagen interpretation" of these effects
follows the "positivist" philosophy in asserting that an electron has no defined
velocity unless it has been measured (which it often cannot be). This viewpoint
seems to make the existence of the external world depend somehow on an
observer. However, this is an interpretation of the observations, and is not
compelled by them. The observed randomness seems to contradict any
deterministic view of the world. Bohm proposed a deterministic theory, involving
particles and "guiding waves", but his approach has not won acceptance.

2.7.4 Quantum Theory

These phenomena have been described mathematically by wave equations (by
Schrödinger and Dirac), and "quantum field theory" which gives more emphasis
on particle aspects. These apparently disparate theories are mathematically
consistent, though a conceptual picture is hard to obtain. It has been truly said
that "what the physicist believes is a mathematical formula". But the formulas
describe, and predict, observations to an astonishing precision, and not only on
an atomic scale. (Devices such as lasers depend on quantum effects.) There are
also serious difficulties. A measurement of a quantum effect is supposed to be by
a "classical" (Newtonian) apparatus — but why is this not part of the quantum
world? Also, quantum theory and general relativity are incompatible, so
gravitation does not fit with quantum theory.

2.7.5 Chaos
While computing a model concerning weather prediction, Lorenz found that
extremely small changes in initial conditions made a great difference to the
result. The computed path moves into a region, called a "strange attractor",
whose location is known, but where it is within this region is not predictable,
unless the initial conditions are known to an impossible precision. This
phenomenon is called "chaos" (not related to "random"), and it has been found in

Author: Allan J Day 2-12

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

various models described by nonlinear equations. Even if we live in a

deterministic world (and we do not know this), it is a much less predictable world
than was previously supposed.

2.7.6 Cosmology
The color of the light from distant galaxies is shifted toward the red end of the
spectrum. In the usual interpretation, this "red shift" results from the galaxies
moving away; the universe is expanding, so must have begun from a small
beginning at some definite past time. This "Big Bang" theory is supported by
observations of microwave radiation, by observed abundances of chemical
elements, and by theoretical considerations from general relativity. A rival theory
of "continuous creation" of matter, with no starting time, does not agree with
some of the mentioned observations. There are also difficulties with the "Big
Bang". Not all redshifts are easily interpreted by receding motion; the degree of
uniformity over great distances is explained by "inflation" of the early universe
(but how was it caused?); and the discrepancy between redshift distances and
gravitation has led to the postulate that most of the mass of the universe is
unobserved (perhaps unobservable) "dark matter". So it may be premature to tie
one's philosophy to the Big Bang. Nevertheless in spite of some of the difficulties
mentioned above, there is a strong consensus that the age of the universe is 13.7
billion years.

2.7.7 New Natural Theology

Calculations of how various chemical elements may have been made namely
those elements necessary for our life and other carbon-based life, show that
various details (energy levels in atomic nuclei) had to be set with extreme
precision, otherwise these elements (and we) would never have existed. A similar
comment apples to other physical details, such as the peculiar properties of
water, and the astonishing chemistry of carbon. These facts have suggested
various versions of the "anthropic principle", according to which the extraordinary
precision of these physical properties was somehow put there to enable life to
exist. Of course, this is a "God of the gaps" theory. But it is hard indeed to see
how these physical properties might have evolved. However, sceptics have
postulated an infinite number of other (unobservable) universes, having different
physical constants, and our universe as some sort of random selection.

2.8 NEW AGE RELATIVISM

The end of the 20th century has seen some disillusionment with a scientific world
objectively described by science. Many people, though dependent on technology, blame
science for many problems of the modern world, especially environmental problems.
Many have rejected a scientific world picture, and replaced it by a "new age" relativism.
There is no uniformity in these views; however common ingredients are: A world view
that is subjective (true for me, maybe not true for you) instead of objective (one truth
out there to be found); Mysticism and holistic "alternative science" (often with no great
concern for evidence); aspects of Hindu religion (especially belief in reincarnation).
Some of the views held are as follows:
Monist - "All is One".
The world and God are regarded as the same.
Pantheist - "All is God".
Often there is belief in "Mother Nature", or “green theology". The "Gaia" theory,
that the whole biota behaves, in some ways, as a feedback system, may be
extended to almost deify the earth.

Author: Allan J Day 2-13

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 2 2009

Autonomy of human beings.

Individuals are thought to have great potential to help themselves.
Relativism.
It is asserted that there is no absolute truth in science and religion. (This
assertion becomes the only absolute truth!) Of course, these various views are in
conflict. But "new age" is not a consistent system. There have been attempts
(e.g. by Capra and Tipler) to synthesize science and faith into a holistic system
drawing on eastern religions and a mistaken understanding of the new physics.
Indeed, some post-modern writers have extensively quoted terms from
mathematics and physics, but misunderstanding their meanings, so as to produce
nonsense!

REFERENCES
Berry, RJ, 1988, God and Evolution, Hodder and Stoughton, London.
Brooke, JH, 1991, Science and Religion — Some Historical Perspectives, CUP,
Cambridge, 1, Chapters VI, VII, VIII.
Frame, T, 2009, Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia, UNSW Press,
Sydney.
Lindberg, D, Numbers, R, (Eds), 1986, God and Nature — Historical Essays on the
Encounter between Christianity and Science, University of California Press, Berkeley,
Chapters 14,15,16.
Livingstone, D, 1987, Darwin’s Hidden Defenders, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Lucas, E, 1996, The New Age Challenge, Apollos, Leicester,1996.
Miller, KR, 1999, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground
between God and Evolution, Cliff Street Books, NY, 2007 edition, Harper Collins, NY.
Moore, J, 1979, The Post Darwinian Controversies, CUP. Cambridge.
Numbers, R, 1992, The Creationists, Alfred Knopf, New York.
Polkinghorne, J, 1991, Reason and Reality, SPCK, London.
Polkinghorne, J, 1994, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, Triangle, London.
Polkinghorne, J, 2002, Quantum Theory : A Very Short Introduction, OUP.
Russell, CA, 1985, Cross Currents - Interactions between Science and Faith, IVP,
Leicester, Chapters 8, 9, 10.
Russell CA, 1989, The Conflict Metaphor and its Social Origins, Science and Christian
Belief, pps. 3-26.
Sokal, A, Bricmont, J., 1997, Intellectual Impostures, Profile Books.

Author: Allan J Day 2-14

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

Chapter 3 GOD’S INTERACTION WITH THE WORLD

Some Metaphysical Considerations

Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-1

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

CONTENTS – CHAPTER 3
Chapter 3 GOD’S INTERACTION WITH THE WORLD................... 3-1
3.1 THE WORLD AND GOD .................................................... 3-3
3.1.1 What do we mean by “God”? ........................................................... 3-3
3.1.2 How does the world work? ................................................................ 3-3
3.1.3 How does God interact with the world? ........................................ 3-3
3.2 METAPHYSICS?............................................................... 3-3
3.2.1 Understanding the big issues ........................................................... 3-3
3.2.2 Attitude to basic reality ...................................................................... 3-3
3.2.3 Relationship of God and the world.................................................. 3-4
3.3 WORLD VIEWS ............................................................... 3-4
3.3.1 What is a worldview? .......................................................................... 3-4
3.3.2 Examples................................................................................................. 3-4
3.4 WORLD PICTURES .......................................................... 3-4
3.4.1 What is a world picture? .................................................................... 3-4
3.4.2 We may have several world pictures within one world view.. 3-4
3.5 NON-MONOTHEISTIC CONCEPTS OF THE WORLD ........... 3-4
3.5.1 Supernaturalism ................................................................................... 3-4
3.5.2 Pantheism ............................................................................................... 3-5
3.5.3 Naturalism .............................................................................................. 3-5
3.5.4 “Scientific” Metaphysics ..................................................................... 3-6
3.6 MONOTHEISTIC WORLD VIEWS ...................................... 3-7
3.6.1 Deism ....................................................................................................... 3-7
3.6.2 Semi-deism ............................................................................................ 3-7
3.6.3 Theism ..................................................................................................... 3-7
3.6.4 Biblical Theism ...................................................................................... 3-8
3.7 GOD’S INTERACTION WITH THE WORLD ........................ 3-8
3.7.1 Theistic world view/scientific world picture ................................. 3-8
3.7.2 Causality.................................................................................................. 3-9
3.7.3 Laws of nature....................................................................................... 3-9
3.8 MIRACLES....................................................................... 3-9
3.8.1 Biblical Miracles................................................................................... 3-10
3.8.2 Miracles—Approach............................................................................ 3-10
3.9 SOME QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION ............................ 3-11
3.10 REFERENCES................................................................. 3-12

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-2

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

3.1 THE WORLD AND GOD

3.1.1 What do we mean by “God”?
This may seem a strange question in a Christian course, however the word “God”
can mean very different things to different people, even among Christians. In the
interface between science and theology, even more diverse definitions can be
found. Biblical theism encounters pantheism, panentheism, deism, semi deism,
atheism, and agnosticism. Unless otherwise stated, we will use the word God to
mean the God of Biblical theism, the triune creator and sustainer of the universe
who has revealed himself through His works and His word, most clearly in the
person and work of Jesus, the Word incarnate.
3.1.2 How does the world work?
The world we see about us could, in principle, work in a number of ways.
Different models have been developed by different cultures. Science and magic
(not to be confused with the occult) are different ways of answering this question.
Science attempts to answer this question by examining the material interactions
in the world. Magic seeks to understand by exploring the hidden connections
between things. Historically, science has proved effective in understanding the
work of the world, whereas magic has failed. Religion, in contrast, deals with
personal relationships between the human and the divine.
3.1.3 How does God interact with the world?
The big question at the root of understanding the interrelationship between
science and Christian faith is this: how does God interact with the world? Does He
work in the world directly, or through secondary causes? Can God only work
through one mode, or can he work via several modes? How are we to understand
miracles? These notes will outline some possible answers to these issues.

3.2 METAPHYSICS?
3.2.1 Understanding the big issues
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that studies the big issues such as ‘what is
reality?’
What is knowledge? Is there a God? If so, how does he (or she!) interact with the
world? Is there one reality or many? Is there a purpose or goal to everything (or
anything)? In the area of the interaction of science and Christian faith there are
several important areas.
3.2.2 Attitude to basic reality
What is reality? Is there an actual world “out there” with which we interact, or
does it exist only in our consciousness? Naive realism would say “yes”, there is a
world out there, and what we sense is how it is. Critical realists would agree on
the reality of the external world but would be more cautious about accepting
appearances. The earth might look as if it were the centre of the universe, but is
it really the centre? Idealists would say we have no way of knowing whether
there is an external reality, what matters is our mental states. Science requires
critical realism to be effective. Some people have adopted an idealist approach to
some scientific questions. The scholastics regarded theories as useful fictions, not
necessarily corresponding to the world. Part of Galileo’s problem was that he
insisted that Copernicanism was actually true, not a useful fiction. Similarly, some
physicists have adopted the same attitude to quantum mechanics. Another
important question is whether there is only one reality or several. Monists such as
positivists argue that there is only one reality, the material world.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-3

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

Transcendentalists also argue that there is only one world, the spiritual, and
believe that the material world is an illusion. Dualists argue there is both a
transcendental and a material reality.
3.2.3 Relationship of God and the world
If the world is indeed real, is that existence independent of or dependent on God?
Has God created a world that is capable of independent action, or does God
uphold the world? Is God one with the world, wholly or in part or is God
transcendent? If God is transcendent, does He interact with the world
continuously, occasionally, or only in the beginning?

3.3 WORLD VIEWS

3.3.1 What is a worldview?
A world view is a basic understanding of the world as a whole, how it relates
together, not in the details of its operation, but in its metaphysical character. A
worldview allows people to live, function, and make sense of what happens to
them in their lives.
3.3.2 Examples
There are many examples of worldviews. There are a number of different though
closely related worldviews within Christianity. More divergent from Christianity
are the worldviews of Judaism and Islam. More distant still are worldviews of the
atheist, pantheist, and polytheist. Science is not a worldview, although it arises
out of a worldview. If people speak of a “scientific world view” they are either
misusing the term or speaking of scientism, where some aspects of science have
been elevated to metaphysical significance.

3.4 WORLD PICTURES

3.4.1 What is a world picture?
A world picture is an interpretative framework of some aspect of the world within
a larger worldview. For example, quantum mechanics is a world picture, a
description of how the world works at a particular level.
3.4.2 We may have several world pictures within one world view
World pictures are not exclusive entities. The quantum physicist will have one
world picture for her science and another for her personal relationships. A
worldview may be consistent with several different world pictures on the same
subject. The Biblical doctrine of creation is consistent with both modern
cosmology and the three-decker cosmology of the ancient world.

3.5 NON-MONOTHEISTIC CONCEPTS OF THE WORLD

3.5.1 Supernaturalism
Characteristics
Implies that events in the world are determined entirely by the interaction of
supernatural forces. These may be independent entities or embodied in “natural”
forces and objects. These entities may be neutral, hostile, or friendly towards
each other and humanity.
Examples
Animism and spiritism, common in so-called primal cultures, and widespread
through much of Asia and Africa, are good examples of supernaturalism. The
spirits are not so much worshipped as feared and placated. Some more mystically
inclined “deep ecologists” appear to argue for a return to such beliefs.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-4

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

Consequences
Science is impossible under such circumstances. Indeed, it is both irrelevant and
dangerous. Irrelevant because what matters in the world is not how the material
world interacts, but the supernatural agents that inhabit it. Dangerous, because
systematic inquiry may offend those spirits. This does not mean that cultures with
supernatural worldviews lack empirical knowledge. Many have considerable
practical expertise. Any understanding of relationships, however are likely to
involve magic, rather than science.
3.5.2 Pantheism
Characteristics
God is nature, nature is God. Pantheists therefore worship nature as God, and see
God as a personification of nature. In most cases however, the pantheist’s God is
impersonal, not personal.
Examples
The ancient Greek concept of Nature as a divine, eternal, self-sustaining entity
was pantheistic, as are some versions of Hinduism. Some “deep ecologists” are
also pantheistic.
Consequences
Despite the reverence for the world that pantheism might appear to engender, in
reality pantheism generally leads to a utilitarian attitude to the world. Pantheism
does not encourage science, although as with supernaturalism, much practical
knowledge may be collected. It does encourage a mystical or rationalistic
contemplation of the world. Deductive, inductive, and empirical sciences might
verge on sacrilege, because by investigating the world you are investigating the
divine. However some pantheists, such as Einstein, would appear to approach
studying the world with a sense of awe and would see science, at least “pure”
science, as something like worship.
3.5.3 Naturalism
Characteristics
Naturalism is the belief that the physical world is all there is. Two kinds of
naturalism can be distinguished, metaphysical naturalism, which states that
matter is all there is, and pragmatic naturalism, which says that matter is all that
matters. Metaphysical naturalism is atheistic, whereas pragmatic naturalism
tends more to agnosticism.
Examples
Positivism is a good example of metaphysical naturalism. Pragmatic naturalism
can be best illustrated by persons or groups who, while claiming to follow a non-
naturalistic system, live and act as though material things were all that were
important. Large-scale belief in metaphysical naturalism is historically rare. The
most significant example is (or was!) Marxism. Pragmatic naturalism is,
unfortunately, much more common.
Consequences
The consequences of naturalism for science are complex. Some scientists (like
Richard Dawkins) promote such an approach. Marxist States strongly supported
science and believed they were scientific. However no metaphysical naturalist
system has survived for long enough to see whether it is a help or a hindrance to
science in the long term. Pragmatic naturalism is more likely to see science as a
means to an end, rather than worth doing for its own sake. Metaphysical
naturalism is commonly confused with methodological naturalism, especially by

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-5

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

the “Intelligent Design” (ID) movement. Methodological naturalism is the

assumption in science that explanations for natural phenomena should first be
sought within the natural world, without automatic appeal to supernatural
causation or other intelligent agents. It does not exclude such agents.
3.5.4 “Scientific” Metaphysics
Physical scientists’ interest
Transcendent laws?
Although long out of fashion, in recent decades some cosmologists have
shown an interest in metaphysical questions. One area is the question
whether or not there are transcendent laws operating in the natural world
which science can discover, or if the scientific “laws” are merely useful
fictions.
Teleology
A second area is the development of the anthropic principle, the possibility
that the physical constants that run the universe appear fine-tuned for the
appearance of life and even intelligence raises the possibility of design.
This is a teleology far more profound than that of Paley. Teleology may
also extend from physics to biology, with the suggestion that organic
evolution is a consequence of those same laws, and that particular
patterns and outcomes in evolution may not be random, but deterministic.
This sort of biological teleology is again very different from that of Paley or
the ID movement.
Eschatology
If the universe has a beginning, possibly fine-tuned, then it may also have
a goal, and even a hope. This is despite the cosmologist’s vision of “freeze
or fry”. Speculations by people such as Tipler and Dyson, that humanity’s
descendants and inheritors might somehow survive the “Omega Point” or
even reverse entropy, take physics beyond the limits of science into
metaphysics.
Examples
Einstein
Albert Einstein was disturbed by the consequences of quantum mechanics
and is said to have once complained “God does not play dice”. “God” to
Einstein was a pantheistic God, at one with the universe. Such a statement
is an expression of what IS, based on what OUGHT, arising from a
particular worldview.
Hawking
Stephen Hawking has written on “The mind of God”. However his God is a
shorthand for the overarching principles that govern physical laws. In so
far as he has any theological concept of God it is a deistic one (see below).
Davies
Paul Davies has gone the furthest in developing explicitly metaphysical
themes in his writings on science. He appears to have moved from
agnosticism to deism as a result of the metaphysical consequences of
cosmology.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-6

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

3.6 MONOTHEISTIC WORLD VIEWS

3.6.1 Deism
Moving from non-monotheistic to explicitly monotheistic worldviews, the first we
should consider is deism. Deism is a degenerate form of Christianity, Judaism, or
Islam, that rejects God’s action in the everyday world or on a personal level.
Deists thus reject revelation, and, in the case of “Christian” deism, they are also
Unitarian. Deists see God as the supreme watchmaker and the universe as a
supreme mechanism. God is only active in the beginning and since that first
moment of creation has left the world alone. The watch has been made and since
then has ticked away by itself. The 18th and 19th century deists saw God as
active in creating the world as a whole. However the discovery by geologists and
astronomers that creation is an ongoing process over a long period of time
invalidated this. Modern deists, such as Davies, would see God in fine-tuning the
Big Bang. The world is a closed system and God either does not or cannot act in
the world.
3.6.2 Semi-deism
Semi-deism also regards God as the watchmaker. The universe runs
independently of God under normal circumstances according to natural laws.
However semi-deists also see God as “intervening” in the world from time to
time. These events are “supernatural” because they cannot be explained by
natural mechanisms, and are miraculous. God is seen to be especially present in
miraculous events to a degree He is not present in every day events. One image
of God in a semi-deistic worldview is God as mechanic, constantly tinkering and
fine-tuning the world, rather like a divine mechanic. Rather less flattering is the
picture of God as magician, performing inexplicable wonders. Anything that is
inexplicable is likely to be regarded as a sign of God’s direct action. “God of the
gaps” thinking is a common outcome of the semi-deistic worldview. Semi-deists
will however defend such gaps as long as possible as they are proof to them of
God’s activity.
Semi-deists typically regard creation and origins as a miraculous event
inexplicable by natural causes. In practice they view creation selectively. Most
have no difficulty with the origin of individuals through natural processes. Some,
such as Young Earth Creationists, regard the creation of the earth and universe
as requiring supernatural activity, while nearly all regard the creation of life and
species as supernatural. Why species and life should enjoy a special status that
rocks, galaxies, or even individuals do not, is not clear among most Christians
regarding God’s interaction with His world. It is also clear that many agnostics
and atheists also regard semi-deism as the Christian position. However popularity
does not necessarily make this the actual worldview of the Bible.
3.6.3 Theism
What is theism?
The word is variously used in the literature. To some it refers to any belief in any
god, singular or plural, as opposed to disbelief, which is atheism. More specifically
in our context, it refers to theism in the special sense, which is contrasted to
deism and semi deism. Theism here means a worldview in which God is
constantly active in the world as creator and sustainer. The distinction between
“natural” and “supernatural” events, so important to semi deists, is irrelevant to a
theist. God works continuously in the world, whether He does so by natural
seeming or supernatural-seeming processes is a secondary issue. A theist need
make no a priori assumptions about any act of God being achieved by natural or
supernatural means, that difference is something that can be worked out from
the evidence.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-7

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

God as actor—interacting with nature

As with semi deism, several analogies have been developed to illustrate God’s
interaction with the world. One is God as playwright. A playwright who also
directs the performance creates a story, supervises construction of the stage, and
directs the action. The play is truly their creation. In the process the playwright
freely interacts with other people—actors, stage mechanics, etc.—to achieve the
goal. In Christian theism God is also an actor in the play, through the incarnation,
rather as Shakespeare is said to have acted in some of his own plays. Dorothy
Sayers has developed this model.
God as artist
A second analogy is God as creative artist or novelist. The artist or author
imagines and creates a world, a subcreation, entirely within their imagination.
Characters within this world have their own reality but it is dependent completely
on the ability of the artist or author to actualise it. This model has been
developed by a number of people including Dorothy Sayers and JRR Tolkien.
God as sustainer
A third analogy is the TV Model, most cogently argued by Donald McKay. It
describes God’s moment by moment sustaining of the universe by comparing it to
a TV. Just as a TV picture is sustained by the signal and current, so the world is
sustained by God. The world is separate from God, just as the TV picture is
separate from the power station and transmitter, but it is not autonomous. All
these images are metaphors, they illustrate some aspect of the theistic
worldview. Each is incomplete, and people will differ in the degree to which they
find them helpful.
3.6.4 Biblical Theism
Definition
Biblical theism means different things to different people, however there are
several consistent threads. The triune God is both creator and sustainer. God is
sovereign over all things, not just some things. God can act in the world through
both natural and miraculous processes, He is no more or less present in one or
the other. This God reveals himself through the book of His words and the book
of His works. In the former God has spoken through His prophets but most clearly
through His son, Jesus Christ, by whom, and for whom we are being and will be
reconciled to God through the cross. Creation has a goal, that is that all things
will be under Christ’s lordship in the new heaven and new earth.
Consequences
The main consequence of Biblical theism is Christian faith in which one is
constantly moving from individual perception to interaction with God—from the I
to the Thou. With respect to science this means that science is not an
anthropocentric activity but one where the individual is constantly interacting with
God the creator through his works. For the Christian this occurs in parallel with
the interaction with God’s word and the individual’s personal faith. For the
Christian in science the practice of science must be something that engages the
whole person, not just a part isolated from the rest of him or her.

3.7 GOD’S INTERACTION WITH THE WORLD

3.7.1 Theistic world view/scientific world picture
The worldview of Biblical theism has several consequences for the scientific world
picture. It affects what we think about the nature of causality and about the laws
of nature.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-8

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

3.7.2 Causality
First causes
God is the first cause of the universe as creator, the first cause that introduces
novelty into the world, and the first cause of the sustaining of the world. God is
the agent that makes these events possible.
Secondary causes – Mechanism
God may choose to achieve these events “directly” or supernaturally, or through
the secondary causes, what we might call natural processes. How we distinguish
between the two is not as easy as might appear, as the following section will
discuss. Therefore it is best to acknowledge that God is creator and sustainer of
and in all things, regardless of whatever mechanisms may or may not be
identified for that action.
3.7.3 Laws of nature
Prescriptive?
People often speak of the “laws of nature” as if they actually existed. However
what we have are rather particular descriptions of how the natural world works. If
they are well supported they are called laws. However as scientific theories are in
constant flux it is epistemologically dangerous to regard these as fixed
prescriptive laws in an absolute sense, no matter how well attested we may think
they are. If we think there are such prescriptive laws (however well we may or
may not understand them) then as theists we must regard them as God ordained.
The question then remains: can God over ride them as He chooses, or is He
bound by them? If we say that God is bound by those laws we are potentially
limiting God in the same ways as the deists did.
Descriptive?
Alternatively, we can regard the “laws of nature” as just descriptions of the way
the world normally works. Because all things are enacted by God the sovereign
creator and sustainer, the “laws of nature” are simply descriptions of the way that
God normally works. They are not prescriptive in any way, any more than a
regularity in the work of a novelist or painter prescribes him or her to always
work in that style.

3.8 MIRACLES
What is a miracle?
Miraculous events occur sporadically through the Bible. They play a key part at
specific times in the history of God – the Exodus (see Humphreys 2003) 1 and the
conquest of Canaan, the ministry of Elijah and Elisha, the life of Jesus and the
early apostolic ministry. Many events in the lives of many Christians through
history have also been described as miraculous. Miracles mean different things to
different people. To some they are events which have no explanation. To others,
such as the philosopher, David Hume, they are events clearly contrary to natural
laws. Some regard “miracle” as a synonym for “magic”.
Problems with these definitions
Each of these definitions has its problems. If a miracle is an inexplicable event
and this event is explained by some future scientific discovery, then “miracle” is
only an excuse for our ignorance. If we define them as events contrary to natural

1
Professor Colin Humphreys, Goldsmith’s Professor of Materials Science at Cambridge
University, shows that there are scientific explanations for the plagues and he also provides a
carefully argued case for the Exodus occurring at near the top of the Gulf of Aqaba and for the
location of the true Mt. Sinai in Arabia.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-9

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

law then we may rule miracles out a priori if we believe that natural laws
prescribe all that can happen. It is also a position of some arrogance in that it
assumes that the natural laws that we understand are the final story. If “miracle”
is equated with the “magical” then any significance of the miracle beyond the
curious may be lost in credulity.
3.8.1 Biblical Miracles
Definition
The Bible defines miracles somewhat differently to most people. In the Bible
miracles are ”signs” of God’s presence, care and salvation. They can also be signs
that point to or illustrate a particular aspect or characteristic of God or lesson
about Him. Miracles are “mighty acts” by which God preserves and saves His
people. They are “wonders”, events that excite awe and worship of God.
Examples
There are a great many Biblical miracles of many different types. A list of well-
known examples might include the arrival of Rebecca at the well, destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah, the crossing of the Red Sea (see Humphreys 20031),
Elisha’s floating axe, the healing miracles, and the resurrection of Jesus.
Characteristics
Each share the common features in that they were significant actions by God in
either the lives of the people concerned or the history of God’s people. In other
ways they were very divergent. The arrival of Rebecca at the well in answer to
Abraham’s servant’s prayer was “fortuitous”. There was nothing unusual in it
except for the fact it occurred in answer to his prayer—and paved the way for the
marriage of Isaac, and the continuation of the Abrahamic line. The Crossing of
the Red Sea was a mighty act of God, but one that the Bible attributes to a
“natural cause” an east wind that blew all night. This event has been successfully
modelled for the northern end of the Gulf of Suez with a northeasterly wind of
about 70 kmph blowing for 12 hours. However Professor Colin Humphreys (2003)
locates the Exodus crossing near the top of the Gulf of Aqaba 1.
For the Biblical writers the explicability of the miracle did not diminish its
significance as an act of God. No explanation is given for the destruction of the
cities of the plain except fire and brimstone raining from heaven. However natural
explanations can be conceived—volcanic eruptions, meteorite impact, explosion of
venting natural gas, and so forth.
The healing miracles do not necessarily involve anything beyond what might
occur naturally. What is miraculous about them is their timing and speed. Some
miracles seem beyond explanation, Elisha’s floating axe head is one. Others
involve something very special, the appearance of transcendent realities within
the confines of the natural world. The resurrection of Jesus is the supreme
example of this. The key thing to note is that while miracles differ in significance,
their significance is not related to whether the event was fortuitous, explicable or
inexplicable.
3.8.2 Miracles—Approach
Miracles in the context of Biblical theism
With the Biblical understanding of miracle as sign, wonder and mighty act we can
then develop a context to understand miracles within Biblical theism. The
approach includes principles to remember, traps to avoid, and questions to ask.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-10

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

Principles to remember
Principles to remember are the fact that God is sovereign in and over all events.
God is as present in miracles as He is in everyday events. What makes a miracle
a miracle is it significance.
Traps to avoid
The second important thing to remember is to avoid particular traps. These
include thinking that miracles can only be events that are inexplicable. Another
trap is the reverse, thinking that explicable events are not and cannot be
miracles. A third trap to avoid is thinking that particular modes of divine action,
such as creation are miraculous and are inherently inexplicable. This is to use
“miraculous” in Hume’s sense, not in the Biblical sense.
What is the meaning and purpose of the miracle?
Because a miracle is defined by its significance in the history of God’s people, it is
always important to consider the miracle and purpose of the miracle. This will
keep us focused on the Biblical understanding of a miracle and its significance at
the time and to us.
What is the cause?
Considering the cause of a particular miracle is therefore not particularly useful in
most cases. However we should always be aware that the particular causation is
not what defines a miracle. Therefore Christians should not be alarmed if it
becomes possible for a particular miracle—such as the virgin birth—to be
explicable by natural causes. All that has been discovered is the way in which God
achieved that miracle.
Miracles today?
If God is constantly at work in His creation then there is no reason for Christians
not to pray or to expect miracles to happen. However we should also be aware
that miracles do appear concentrated into particular epochs of history, so they
may not be the norm. However if we do pray for miracles we should also be
aware that they might come in forms unlooked for. A miraculous deliverance from
drowning may be in the form of a rescue helicopter, not just angels descending
from above.

3.9 SOME QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

• How can we tell when an unwarranted metaphysical conclusion is being made
from science?
• What is so special about the species that many Christians insist on miraculous
origins for them when they do not insist on miraculous creation of rocks and
galaxies or individuals?
• How might a semi deist and a theist differ in their attitude to prayer?

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-11

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 3 2009

3.10 REFERENCES
Berry, RJ, 1988, God and Evolution, Hodder and Stoughton, London. Appendix What to
believe about miracles pp. 165-172.
Holder, R, 1993, Nothing but Atoms and Molecules, Monarch, Tunbridge Wells.
Hooykaas, R, 1959, Natural Law and Divine Miracle, EJ Brill, Leiden, p. 237.
Houghton. J, 1995, The Search for God, Lion, London, Chapters 12 and13.
Jeeves, MA, Berry, RJ, 1998, Science, Life and Christian Belief, Apollos, Leicester.
Hummel, CE, 1986, The Galileo Connection, IVP, Downers Grove, pp. 179-197, Chapter
2.
Humphreys, CJ, 2003, The Miracles of the Exodus: A Scientist’s Discovery of the
Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories, Continuum, London.
MacKay, D, 1988, The Open Mind and other Essays, IVP, Leicester, pp.20-32.
Polkinghorne, J, 1995, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, Triangle, London, Chapters 5 and
6.
Polkinghorne, J, 1989, Science and Providence, SPCK, London, Chapters 4 and 6.
Poole, M, 1990, A Guide to Science and Belief, Lion, London, Chapter 5.
Russell, C, 1985, Crosscurrents - Interaction between Science and Faith, IVP, Leicester,
pp. 93 -97.

Authors: Jonathan D A Clarke & Allan J Day 3-12

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

Chapter 4 RATIONAL INQUIRY

Science and Theology and their Limitations

Allan J Day

Author: Allan J Day 4-1

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

CONTENTS – CHAPTER 4
Chapter 4 RATIONAL INQUIRY ............................................................................. 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION - SCIENCE.............................................. 4-4
4.1.1 Perceptions............................................................................................... 4-4
4.1.2 Need for some balance ........................................................................ 4-4
4.2 WHAT IS SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE? ......... 4-4
4.2.1 Definitions ................................................................................................ 4-4
4.3 HISTORY OF SCIENCE ..................................................... 4-5
4.3.1 Greek rationalism .................................................................................. 4-5
4.3.2 Western “Modern Science” ................................................................. 4-5
4.4 NATURE OF SCIENCE ....................................................... 4-6
4.4.1 Reductionist in methodology.............................................................. 4-6
4.4.2 Reliable ..................................................................................................... 4-6
4.4.3 Selective ................................................................................................... 4-6
4.4.4 Communicable ........................................................................................ 4-6
4.4.5 Dynamic.................................................................................................... 4-6
4.4.6 Creative—“Eurekaism” ......................................................................... 4-6
4.4.7 Metaphysical presuppositions ............................................................ 4-6
4.5 METHODS OF SCIENCE .................................................... 4-6
4.5.1 False impressions .................................................................................. 4-7
4.5.2 Scientific method ................................................................................... 4-7
4.5.3 What are scientific theories?.............................................................. 4-7
4.5.4 How can we prove a theory? ............................................................. 4-7
4.5.5 Scientific Method—Subjective Elements ........................................ 4-8
4.5.6 Paradigm shifts – Kuhn........................................................................ 4-8
4.5.7 Thus one can conclude that science is “motivated belief” not
“objective truth”................................................................................... 4-8
4.6 LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE .............................................. 4-8
4.6.1 Limited in its domain ............................................................................ 4-8
4.6.2 Scientific knowledge is not the only sort of knowledge ............ 4-9
4.6.3 Science only asks particular sorts of questions ........................... 4-9
4.6.4 Science describes truth, does not prescribe it ............................. 4-9
4.6.5 Science is concerned with secondary causes not primary
causes...................................................................................................... 4-9
4.6.6 There are different levels of explanation even within science 4-9
4.7 THEOLOGY AND ITS LIMITATIONS .................................. 4-9
4.7.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 4-9
4.7.2 What is theology and theological knowledge?............................ 4-10
4.7.3 Presuppositions .................................................................................... 4-11
4.7.4 Plato ......................................................................................................... 4-11
4.7.5 Aristotle, Aquinas................................................................................. 4-11
4.7.6 Renaissance........................................................................................... 4-11
4.7.7 19th Century - Theology in crisis..................................................... 4-11
4.7.8 19th and 20th Centuries...................................................................... 4-11
4.8 NATURE OF THEOLOGY.................................................. 4-12

Author: Allan J Day 4-2

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

4.8.1 How does theology work? ................................................................. 4-12

4.8.2 Natural theology .................................................................................. 4-12
4.8.3 Scripture ................................................................................................. 4-12
4.8.4 Experience.............................................................................................. 4-12
4.8.5 Theological “theories”......................................................................... 4-12
4.8.6 Verifying the “theory”......................................................................... 4-13
4.9 WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS OF THEOLOGY ?.............. 4-13
4.9.1 Limited human understanding......................................................... 4-13
4.9.2 Limited domain..................................................................................... 4-13
4.10 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 4-13
4.11 REFERENCES ............................................................... 4-14

Author: Allan J Day 4-3

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

4.1 INTRODUCTION - SCIENCE

!"#"# Perceptions$$
The success of science over the last 400 years speaks for itself. It has come to dominate
20thC life, having spread from its origin in Western Christendom. The nature of science
however is frequently misunderstood. There are two extreme views.
• Science as objective, reliable knowledge
There is an emphasis on its objectivity. Science is seen as giving reliable factual
information. This perception conveys the essence of Modernism – Triumphalism.
Often science is seen as the whole of reality, the only route to reliable knowledge.
This becomes the problem of deification.
• As a subjective construct, a personal subjective view of the physical
world.
In the late 20th Century, there has been a reaction against science. It is seen as
producing many or most of the problems of civilisation: pollution, population
explosion, global warming. There is the problem of its denigration and relegation
to being one of many views about the natural world. There is an emphasis on its
subjectivity. Science is seen as one of many relative views of the world. This is
the essence of Post-Modernism.

4.1.2 Need for some balance

Neither of the above views, deifying or demonising science, are true. It is neither
a panacea for our society ills, nor a culprit to be blamed for them. It is neither the
source of all knowledge, nor the holy grail of certainty and objective truth.
Unfortunately many scientists who are engaged in science do not have a clear
idea of the philosophy of science, of how it works. Many fail to recognise the
nature and limitations of science; or that objective and subjective elements are
both important in its practice. We need to look therefore at what science is and
how it works and to explore a little of the philosophy of science.
Consider three Questions
• What is science and scientific knowledge?
• How do we obtain scientific knowledge? What do scientists do?
• What are the limitations of science?
The problem that arises is, does science explain anything, let alone everything?

4.2 WHAT IS SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE?

4.2.1 Definitions
Science is knowledge that is limited by the object of its study and by the methods
of that study. It might be defined as what scientists do as scientists, not as
private persons. That is, a knowledge of the world obtained by scientific methods.
Object of scientific study
Science is knowledge about the physical world. There are other aspects of
reality— God, aesthetic knowledge, morals etc.—which are beyond the scope of
science.
Domain of science
Science is knowledge derived in a particular way— by the scientific method. It
is knowledge expressed in a precise, coherent, detailed form. Science is

Author: Allan J Day 4-4

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

concerned with the properties, mechanisms and formative history of the

physical world. There are other ways however of obtaining information about the
world. Thus science is not all knowledge. For example, a Turner seascape is a
perfectly valid view of the world. In scientific terms it is pigmented paint on
canvas. It is not knowledge expressed in everyday language. e.g. “To love with
all your heart” is a true but unscientific statement.
Rational empiricism
This term may be considered a general description of science. Some other terms
for consideration, empiricism, perception, reality, realism, idealism, all need
defining.
Critical realism
Critical realism perhaps best describes science which is a critical and rational
approach to the way things really are. It is not truth, but a way of knowing truth.
There are two aspects: Observation and experiment
There is a real world to be observed—Realism cf. Idealism. Science is one way of
knowing about this reality, by empiricism, perception. Science is thus not reality,
but a way of knowing about reality
Rational interpretation
Science is concerned with the interpretation of data, thus there is a subjective
element. It is not “what is”, but an interpretation of what is. Judgments are
involved. It builds a model, an approximation of the truth. Thus science is
“rational empiricism”, critical realism.

4.3 HISTORY OF SCIENCE

There are two threads of influence on modern science. See Chapter 1 for a more detailed
consideration of these aspects.

4.3.1 Greek rationalism

The role of reason or naturalism. This considers the world as self existent, self
governing. Therefore knowledge about it can be derived by reason alone.

4.3.2 Western “Modern Science”

This is a 16th and 17th Century development. The methodology of science—
rational empiricism, observation and experiment—developed, in a climate of
Christian thought, out of the Renaissance and Reformation It was significantly
influenced by a Judeo-Christian understanding of creation. The world is separate,
dependent and good. Thus Nature is perceived as ordered (therefore
determinable) as well as contingent (not necessary). Therefore it must be
observed to determine its nature. It is temporal, not divine and therefore it is
open to investigation. Man has dominion as God’s steward, therefore science is an
outworking of theology (Ps.111:2, Ps.8). Thus humanity has a mandate for
exploring nature. The world is good not evil, therefore we can associate with it.
17thC scientists, as exemplified by the Charter of the Royal Society, saw it as their
Christian duty to investigate God’s creation, “to think God’s thoughts after Him”.

Author: Allan J Day 4-5

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

4.4 NATURE OF SCIENCE

4.4.1 Reductionist in methodology

It is concerned with measuring, systematising, reducing to laws; i.e. science has
an analytical approach, to determine order. Basic science therefore is reductionist
and mathematical.

4.4.2 Reliable
Its claims are checked and errors corrected. It is public knowledge capable of
inter-subject verification.

4.4.3 Selective
Regarding the objects studied
Science is limited to what can be measured or observed. Thus beauty and morals
for example are not part of scientific knowledge.
Regarding the way they are studied
Concerned with physical properties, behaviour, formative history. It is not
concerned with origins, purpose, governance, but rather with mechanisms. For
example, a gemstone. Science considers its composition, not its beauty.
Regarding humanity, science considers its physiology, not its relationships or
morality.

4.4.4 Communicable
General, objective (therefore it can be repeated). Library information is available
for all. Today we would add the internet.

4.4.5 Dynamic
Builds on the past. This is always growing, an approximation of the truth, never
complete.

4.4.6 Creative—“Eurekaism”
There is an element of accident, of intuition, in science and of personal input.

4.4.7 Metaphysical presuppositions

Science is based on non provable assumptions about its subject, the natural
world. Presuppositions about order, that Nature is ordered not random. Science
explores that order.
Intelligibility
That we can understand, comprehend nature.
Rationality
That Nature can be reduced to laws, equations etc.
Uniformity
That the same laws apply everywhere. e.g. gravity.
Worthwhileness of science.

4.5 METHODS OF SCIENCE

How do we obtain scientific knowledge? What do scientists do?

Author: Allan J Day 4-6

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

4.5.1 False impressions

False impressions exist re the dynamic nature of science. “Science gives the
facts.” This is reinforced by the constraints of secondary and tertiary teaching.
Textbooks and notes are required that give the “facts”. Some textbooks give a
summary of present facts not a basis for consideration. e.g. Ganong as a
textbook of Physiology. Post Graduate research dispels this illusion. There is of
course an important objective element.

4.5.2 Scientific method

Objective elements, facts and interpretation—Induction
Baconian induction consists of observation, collection of experimental facts and
the formation of a “Hypothesis” based on “the facts”.
Induction, hypothesis, deduction, confirmation
A further development is the combination of induction from experimental and
observed facts and deduction from principles so determined. Theories are then
conceived as objective explanations, verified by further experiment. However
induction is not a firm basis for logical proof, nor can theories be absolutely
verified. Not all facts can be collected so logically. Some may emerge that do not
verify the conclusion.

4.5.3 What are scientific theories?

Some common misconceptions must be dispelled. Scientific theories are not
established fact, but neither are they pure speculation. Theories are models to
explain the data, not established facts. They make sense of the data. They are
continually being modified however. It is part of the nature of science. They are
not pictures of reality but interpretations of reality. They might be described as
maps of the way things are. They need to be updated as does a map, but even if
incomplete can be useful guides. They may also be influenced by subjective
factors.

4.5.4 How can we prove a theory?

Verification principle?
It is virtually impossible to logically prove a scientific theory. We can never
exclude the possibility of non consistent data. e.g. That all swans are black?
Newton’s theory of gravitation was strongly supported by observations, yet some
later observations contradicted it, and Einstein’s theory was required. Note that
this new theory included the old theory, as still applicable in many, but not all
circumstances. Popper suggested that a scientific theory must be capable of
falsification, i.e. that although theories can not be proven they can be falsified
and if that possibility does not exist, then the “theory” is not scientific. This
principle although helpful is not without problem as a single criterion. (How much
evidence is needed to falsify a theory?)
What is a measure of a good theory?
There is no single criterion. The following factors however are considered.
Consistency with the data; explanatory value (ability to explain the way things
are); coherence, unifying value; and falsifiability, Popper’s concept of the value of
risky theories, i.e those readily falsifiable are worth noting. Predictive value.
Simplicity—Ockham’s Razor. Fertility, ability to generate experiment. Beauty.
These together give a picture of the best explanation of the way things are.

Author: Allan J Day 4-7

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

4.5.5 Scientific Method—Subjective Elements

There are however considerable subjective elements to scientific method.
Personal Knowledge - Polanyi
All knowledge is obtained by observer or instrument observation. The importance
of interpretation, bias, intellectual climate, i.e. the subjective overlay must
therefore be considered. In any investigation there is a need for selectivity of
facts from experiments. Thus what is observed is always selective; again a
subjective input.
Science is always a community activity
Apprenticeship, the role of groups, the presence of criticism is always present.
This implies competence, integrity and judgment. But it also often ensures the
continuation of accepted paradigms within a society that may inhibit
consideration of certain data.
Science is theory driven
Thus no new worker comes to science with a clean sheet. They are faced with the
established wisdom, the current theory. Can it be supported, modified or
rejected? “What are the questions being asked?” These are prominent approaches
to science. Not simply a collection of objective data and a postulated theory to
explain them. This is a caricature of science in action.

4.5.6 Paradigm shifts – Kuhn

Kuhn has brought a new approach to scientific understanding with his concept of
science proceeding by paradigm shifts. Intuitive as well as objective knowledge is
important. The “eureka” principle. Creativity, flashes of genius. Progress often
occurs in giant steps: e.g. Einstein’s relativity, antibiotics, structure of DNA. Most
scientists however are concerned with refining the current paradigm, not with a
shift. This therefore may inhibit new revolutionary shifts. However the past is
always important. New insights: data cause a revision not a replacement of the
past picture. This represents the dynamic nature of science. Thus science is not
just “the facts of science”, “the truth”, but has a significant subjective
“interpretative element” and such interpretations are being continually reviewed
in the light of the data and through critical evaluation by the scientific
community. However while science is influenced by the subjective overlay, it is
not determined by the observer. Science is not just a construct unrelated to the
way things are.

4.5.7 Thus one can conclude that science is “motivated belief” not
“objective truth”.
There are however good “grounds” for such belief. It is the explanation of the
way things are in nature. “Critical Realism” i.e. it is possible to know the truth
about the ways things are by science. Science certainly works as the last 400
years testifies. However let us be aware of its limitations. It is the search for
truth, never absolute truth, and then only the search for “scientific truth”, not the
search for the whole of truth. We need a bit of humility in the pursuit of science.

4.6 LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE

4.6.1 Limited in its domain

It is knowledge derived in a particular way, not all knowledge. But science is not
limited in its scope within this domain. A “God of the Gaps” is rightly excluded by
scientific advance. Such an explanation is an inappropriate response to scientific
ignorance. The proper response to gaps in scientific knowledge is not to postulate

Author: Allan J Day 4-8

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

a divine explanation, but as Coulson has indicated to do more and better science.
Scientific history is littered with examples where this would have been excellent
advice e.g. life, DNA, development of species, evolution, creation, big bang.
There is a sense in which there is no place for God in scientific explanation. Cf.
Laplace’s comment to Napoleon.

4.6.2 Scientific knowledge is not the only sort of knowledge

It is not a substitute for religious knowledge. There are areas of truth that are
beyond the methodology of science. We cannot “measure” morality, good or evil.
Science has no moral insights. Science can say nothing about relationship,
knowing a person, or beauty, or appreciating a sunset or landscape or a painting.
These involve aesthetic or moral knowledge.

4.6.3 Science only asks particular sorts of questions

Questions about mechanisms, not meaning. Of how, not why. e.g. oxygen usage
in exercise, SOS messages or a kettle boiling may have a scientific explanation or
a non scientific one. Some questions may be more relevant in different
circumstances. How do I come to be here? As a scientific question the appropriate
answer is evolution i.e. a process, a mechanism. Why am I here on the other
hand is a theological question and the answer is related to God and purpose.

4.6.4 Science describes truth, does not prescribe it

Laws are descriptions, not forces, not deterministic. Thus evolution is not a force
but the description of a process or mechanism. Science doesn’t determine what
happens in nature, just describes it. Methodological reductionism is intrinsic to
science, but ontological reductionism is a metaphysical entity. Theories and laws
may need modification as more information emerges.

4.6.5 Science is concerned with secondary causes not primary causes.

Science describes an object fully at one level, but has nothing to say about
ultimate or primary causes; e.g. a house may be describable in terms of the
primary cause (architect/ design) or of the building materials. Or a cake in terms
of the cook, or the ingredients and the cooking process. To describe the
processes, do not exclude the cook.

4.6.6 There are different levels of explanation even within science

Physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology and theology all give different,
but not conflicting views of humanity. This can be illustrated in many areas. e.g.
A house can be explained in terms of bricks and mortar, and of a builder and
architect. Steam from a kettle may be explained in terms of physics or because
we wish to have tea or make a protest against some restriction. Thus “nothing
buttery” is not a logically valid position. It is simply not true that we are “nothing
but atoms and molecules”. (See Mackay, 1988; Holder, 1993.)

4.7 THEOLOGY AND ITS LIMITATIONS

4.7.1 Introduction
Theology
In today’s world science is dominant and popular, while theology seems to be
receding and unpopular. Again there are some stereotypes, some perceptions
that need to be redressed.

Author: Allan J Day 4-9

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

Perceptions
That theology is concerned with the immaterial, the irrational, myth. Therefore, it
is maintained, there are no rational or objective grounds for religious belief.
Therefore its study is an anachronism. This view is often promoted by popular
scientific writers such as Dawkins, whose response to the development of the
Starbridge lectureship at Cambridge is expressed in his letter to the Independent
“What has theology ever said that is the smallest use to anybody…?“ (quoted in
Holder, 1993, pp. 15-16). The Oxford response was the creation of the Chair in
the Public Understanding of Science, financed by Microsoft, provided it was given
to Dawkins.
Outdated, superseded
Part of a medieval world, where explanation was in terms of magic and myth.
Not supported by evidence
Dawkins observes that “Science shares with religion the claim that it answers the
deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos. But there the
resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence. And they get
results. Myths and faiths are not and do not”. (Dawkins, 1995, p. 33)
Doesn’t ask meaningful questions
It is interesting to see this aspect developed by Dawkins in his response to the
Duke of Edinburgh in the meetings arranged by the Duke to discuss science.
None of these contentions are true but they represent a discarding of theological
knowledge by many as being non knowledge. As such they are of course an
example of logical positivism.
Consider three questions
What is theology and is it a legitimate approach in today’s world?
How does it work? Methods?
What are its limitations?
Theology must interact with contemporary culture. Compare the pursuit of
Theology with that of science.

4.7.2 What is theology and theological knowledge?

Definition - Rational pursuit of the knowledge about God
Object of theology is God
Thus knowledge of God and his relationship with the physical universe i.e.
with nature, humanity etc. Presupposes a reality beyond the physical
world, and that God can be known by theological method. Our experience
of God therefore is not just a construct of our minds but is a picture of
reality—the way things actually are.
Theology is a human activity
However the subject matter of theology, unlike that of science, transcends
us, therefore we are dealing with mystery, transcendent realities.
God can only be known as He reveals himself
It might be argued that theology must have revelation as well as reason
as its source of information.

Revelation

Author: Allan J Day 4-10

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

God’s revelation to us. i.e. God taking the initiative, communicating with us. God
reveals himself basically in two ways by:
• General Revelation
In nature and history cf. Rom. 1:19–20.
• Special Revelation
In Scripture cf. 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 21. Such revelation is neither
irrational nor illogical, unless one presupposes “there is no god”. Thus like
science (and atheism) theology has its presuppositions.

4.7.3 Presuppositions
There is a God, Heb. 1:1, Gen. 1:1. He reveals Himself (in Christ).
Atheist presuppositions are no more rational, nor provable.
History indicates the interaction with culture and a variety of world views, which
is part and parcel of the practice of theology. See Chapter 1 for a fuller
development of this theme.

4.7.4 Plato
Created the concept of a divide between the real spiritual world of images and the
world of matter.

4.7.5 Aristotle, Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas sought to amalgamate Aristotelian philosophy with Christian
theology in his 13thC. synthesis. Such an approach was useful, but it needed to be
reviewed as theology came to grips with the modern world. In the Thomist
synthesis, scientific and theological explanations were integrated. There was an
interdependence of natural philosophy and theology. Causation was associated
with the efficient cause, the primary cause. Essentially primary and secondary
causes were part of a total unity.

4.7.6 Renaissance
The renaissance saw a divorce of scientific explanation and theological
explanation. Francis Bacon introduced the concept of the Two Books, the Book of
the World (Nature) and the Book of the Word (Scripture). Thus there was
generated an independence for science which blossomed in the Enlightenment
and in the development of a secular science. This left apparently no role for
theology.

4.7.7 19th Century - Theology in crisis

Schleiermacher, and Kant sought to provide a subjective, existential role for
theology, concerned primarily with morality and experience. Thus there arose a
divorce of science from theology. A divorce from Dogma to become Pietism. A
divorce from Natural theology to become Experience

4.7.8 19th and 20th Centuries

In the 19th and 20th Centuries we see some inappropriate relationships
developing, with science apparently conflicting with theology or seen as being
pursued entirely in isolation from it. The issues of geology, of Darwinian evolution
and of Freud’s psychology etc. see theology often inadequately coping with a
secular scientific world view. Is there a place for “supernaturalism”, miracles,
prayer etc.?

Author: Allan J Day 4-11

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

4.8 NATURE OF THEOLOGY

We need to ask therefore what is the role for theology. It might be suggested
that it asks “Why”, “Who” questions, questions of purpose and of ultimate control.
Questions such as “Who am I?”, “Why am I here?” These are essentially
questions about basic reality, of hope, of life and death and their significance, of
morality in relation to nature. These are more overarching questions.
Questions about God, Humanity and the world.
It is concerned with the transcendent, aspects beyond physical reality, questions
about origins and governance. We are not self existent or self governing. These
are not scientific questions but are nevertheless meaningful. They may however
interact with current science and its implications.

4.8.1 How does theology work?

Who are the theologians?
Theology is an activity for all, not just an academic discipline, i.e. to engage in
the pursuit of the implications of contemporary culture for our understanding of
God etc.
Theological method
Theological knowledge may be obtained by using reason to lead to faith as in
Aquinas, by examining the data, forming models and testing the explanatory
power of these models. In some respects it is not unlike the bottom up thinking
of science. There are important differences however. The sources of data are
somewhat different, but there is nevertheless an objective element.

4.8.2 Natural theology

Nature forms the basis of information about God—the God of nature. The
argument from design, the teleological argument is of this sort. As is the
argument from causation, the cosmological argument. The arrival at an
understanding about God, about faith is part of the Aquinas system. Reason then
leads to faith. It has clear limitations as a proof of God however. Natural theology
has been given a new exposure in the late 20thC with the New Natural Theology.
Evidences from physics and cosmology have suggested to many a theistic
explanation as the most appropriate explanation of the laws of nature. Davies, for
example, has written extensively about this aspect as have others. The Anthropic
principle or Goldilocks effect will be discussed later. One must be aware however
of the limitations of natural theology, both as a proof of God and as a means of
discovering a personal God.

4.8.3 Scripture
Both the Old Testament in its record of the words and activity of God in relation
to Israel, and the New Testament with the record of the gospels, bring content to
theology. We are not dealing with credulity or blind faith. There is a basis for
theological knowledge.

4.8.4 Experience
This may be the personal experience of individuals in their encounter with God or
the community experience of the church, of tradition.

4.8.5 Theological “theories”

Theology of necessity must have its models, its symbols. Models and metaphors
are necessary to describe God: as Trinity, as a person, as a father. All of these

Author: Allan J Day 4-12

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

are an attempt to make sense of the data. These models may need to change
with time. There are thus many analogies with science. Reason is also important
to interpret the data and translate it to our own cultural background.

4.8.6 Verifying the “theory”

In verifying the truth or otherwise of a theological theory we need to consider all
the data from nature, scripture, experience, and determine its coherency. Does it
make sense? Is it consistent with the data, with the way things are? Thus with
theology as with science, epistemology mirrors ontology. Experience, whether
scientific or theological, must make sense of the picture and indicate the way
things are. Thus one can conclude that theology is “motivated belief” not just
“subjective perception”. It has three aspects—presuppositions, content, belief.

4.9 WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS OF THEOLOGY ?

4.9.1 Limited human understanding

We are finite and sinful. Theology is a human exercise. Therefore humility in
pursuing theology is appropriate. This is indicated in two areas particularly. In
interpretation, e.g. the interpretation of Genesis; and in natural theology, as
science is not the way to God.

4.9.2 Limited domain

Theology is not the appropriate source of scientific knowledge and cannot replace
the scientific knowledge of nature. God is not a God of the Gaps.

4.10 CONCLUSIONS
Theology and science have many similarities in their methodology. Science is not just
objective truth and theology a subjective construct. There are presuppositions, content,
and a belief system in both. However their subject matter differs. There is a need to
recognise the limitations of both. Both ask meaningful questions and provide valid, if
incomplete answers, in their respective domains, contributing to our total view of reality.

Author: Allan J Day 4-13

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 4 2009

4.11 REFERENCES

Dawkins, R, 1995, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Basic Books. New York.
Ferguson, K, 1994, The Fire in the Equations, Bantam, London, Chapter 3.
Hodgson, P, 1990, Christianity and Science, OUP, Oxford.
Holder, R, 1993, Nothing but Atoms and Molecules, Monarch, Tunbridge Wells.
MacKay, D, 1988, The Open Mind and other Essays, IVP, Leicester.
Polkinghorne, J, 1983, The Way the World is, Triangle, London, Chapter 2.
Poole, M, 1995, Beliefs and Values in Science Education, Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Van Til et al., 1990, Portraits of Creation, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Chapter 5.
Van Til et al. 1988, Science Held Hostage, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Chapters 1,2 and 4.

Author: Allan J Day 4-14

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

Chapter 5 WAYS OF RELATING SCIENCE AND FAITH

Allan J Day

Author: Allan J Day 5-1

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

CONTENTS – CHAPTER 5

Chapter 5 WAYS OF RELATING SCIENCE AND FAITH................................... 5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION — MODELS............................................. 5-3
5.2 CONFLICT........................................................................ 5-3
5.2.1 Perceptions .............................................................................................. 5-3
5.2.2 “Creation Science” - History of the conflict................................... 5-3
5.2.3 Scientific Naturalism, Reductionism, Scientism........................... 5-4
5.2.4 Biblical literalism (Creationism) ........................................................ 5-6
5.2.5 History of Biblical interpretation of Genesis in the past............ 5-6
5.2.6 Creationism: Creation Science .......................................................... 5-7
5.3 SEPARATION, INDEPENDENCE, CONTRAST ..................... 5-9
5.3.1 Different methods.................................................................................. 5-9
5.3.2 Different languages............................................................................... 5-9
5.3.3 Different domains .................................................................................. 5-9
5.4 COMPLEMENTARITY, DIALOGUE, CONSONANCE .............. 5-9
5.4.1 Boundary questions .............................................................................. 5-9
5.4.2 Similarities in methodology.............................................................. 5-10
5.5 INTEGRATION (ASSIMILATION) ................................... 5-10
5.5.1 Is there a new natural theology? ................................................... 5-10
5.6 REJECTION — NEW AGE CONSIDERATIONS................... 5-11
5.7 CONCLUSIONS - SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY ARE
COMPLEMENTARY ................................................................. 5-11
5.8 REFERENCES ................................................................. 5-12

Author: Allan J Day 5-2

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

5.1 INTRODUCTION — MODELS!!

Five models are suggested. Cf. Barbour, Bube, Peters (see References). Actually
Barbour (Issues in Science and Religion) considers four models, while Peters (in Cosmos
as Creation) discusses eight possible models. Barbour opts for dialogue while Peters opts
for hypothetical consonance.
1. CONFLICT —Scientism, Creationism
2. SEPARATION
3. COMPLEMENTARY —Dialogue, Consonance
4. INTEGRATION —Assimilation
5. REJECTION —New Age

5.2 CONFLICT
In this model it is suggested that science and faith provide alternative explanations
to origins and therefore that they are in competition with each other. Thus we must
reject either faith or science.

5.2.1 Perceptions
This is the common perception in the community, in schools and in many parts of
the church — that science and Christian belief are at loggerheads. It is the view
that is commonly portrayed in the media either implicitly or explicitly, that any
supernatural view of origins is outdated. Science is then seen as superseding
faith. This leads to a polarisation of views. Thus it is maintained that one cannot
be a scientist and a Christian, one cannot believe the bible and accept the modern
scientific findings about cosmology, biology and psychology. Jayne’s (16yrs)
response e.g. is typical of the view of many secondary students today, “Genesis
says the world was made by God, but we know it was made by the Big
Bang”.
It might be repeated and reversed or applied to other related areas. “The bible
tells us that humans were made by God, therefore evolution cannot be
true.” Thus the position of conflict is reinforced. These perceptions are fueled
from two contemporary sources, both of which formally espouse the conflict view,
Scientific naturalism or “Scientism” and Biblical literalism.

5.2.2 “Creation Science” - History of the conflict

What is the genesis of this perception and is it true?1
Much is based on a false reading of history.
Galileo? The conflict was about the centrality of the sun, not a science-faith conflict.
Darwin? The conflict was about a static cosmos and the struggle for cultural
supremacy in 19thC. England, not a science-faith conflict.
White’s History of the Warfare and Draper’s History of the Conflict, both now
discredited, did much to promote the conflict view. Historical revision has addressed
this aspect. Biographical data also fails to support the conflict view. Many scientists
are Christian.
In the 17thC, the rise of modern science was influenced and driven by men with a
positive Christian faith, men such as Bacon, Boyle, Newton and Kepler, as well as
many others prominent as founding fathers of science. In the 19thC, the response to

1
See Chapters 1-3.

Author: Allan J Day 5-3

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

Darwinism was mixed, with many prominent Christians, such as Gray, Wright and
Warfield being supportive. The conservative theological response was to accept
Darwinism with some reservations, In the 20thC, many contemporary scientists are
committed Christians. Therefore we can reject the conclusion of a historical conflict
although the historical interaction has often been complex. Let us look at the
contemporary picture, the heritage of the 19thC polarisation and of its
misconceptions about science and faith. (See Russell, 1985, 1989; Moore, 1995;
Livingston, 1987, Berry, 1981).

5.2.3 Scientific Naturalism, Reductionism, Scientism

Scientific Fundamentalism argues for the priority of science as the saviour of society,
as the only valid source of information. It is claimed that everything is explained by
science. Religion is therefore redundant, outmoded, unnecessary.
Publicists
Dawkins, Crick, Atkins, Sagan — all well known scientists, but also aggressive
atheists using science to support their “belief system”. Richard Dawkins in The Blind
Watchmaker (p 147) states that
The basic idea of The Blind Watchmaker is that we don’t need to
postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the
universe.
In the River out of Eden (p. 37), Dawkins indicates that “science shares with
religion the claim that it answers the deep questions about origins, the nature
of life , and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs
are supported by evidence. And they get results. Myths and faiths are not
and do not.”
Peter Atkins in The Creation (1981) (pp. vii-viii) states,
My aim is to argue that the universe can come into existence without
intervention, and that there is no need to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being
in one of its numerous manifestations.
Description
There are a number of descriptive terms
Scientism
Makes three claims:-
1. That God is unnecessary
It considers that God is an alternative explanation to science and is now
no longer necessary. It has a mistaken view of God as a “God of the
Gaps”. This is an inadequate view of God. “To the theist God is the
cause of everything but the explanation of nothing.”
2. That God is incredible
Religious explanation is unbelievable — equates credibility with credulity -
that I can’t believe. See rebuttals in Stannard (1996), Stannard (1993),
Holder (1993) and Jeeves (1969).
3. That God is objectionable
The supernatural is seen as an unacceptable replacement for the natural—
but the natural is also the work of God. These are all conclusions of
scientism. Science itself cannot draw these conclusions. They are outside
its domain, beyond its limits. Science in this approach has become a world
view— a way of looking at the world— the spectacles by which we view all

Author: Allan J Day 5-4

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

of reality— a philosophy or a belief system. The assertion that science

does away with God etc. therefore depends on the presupposition that
science is all there is - on assumptions regarding the validity of a
particular philosophical position. Scientism leads to Reductionism,
“Nothing Buttery” etc.
Logical Positivism
That science provides a complete explanation of the world. There is nothing
beyond scientific knowledge. Nothing is real if it can not be observed by the
methods of “objective” science. Bertrand Russell defines Logical Positivism as
follows, “Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific
methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know”. Science is
considered the only valid pathway to truth, therefore other sources of truth are
excluded. Non scientific knowledge is non knowledge. Beauty, morality, religion
are not admissible. Scientific explanations are therefore the only valid
explanations. Metaphysics is excluded, only physics (science) matters.
Reductionism
Implies that everything is explained by science. Reality - the way things are- can
be reduced to scientific knowledge. We must distinguish between
Methodological Reductionism - which is integral to scientific investigation, and
Ontological Reductionism - which is not science but philosophy.
“Nothing buttery”
The proposition that I am nothing but atoms and molecules. Cf. ink on the page
with the message. The former does not exclude the latter.
Evaluation of Logical Positivism, Reductionism, Scientism.
Scientists must be careful to stick to science and not make naïve
philosophical statements in the name of science. There are many
ways of obtaining valid knowledge. Some lie outside the domain of the
scientific method. To deny the validity of non scientific information is to
deny aesthetic, moral, religious knowledge, or personal private knowledge.
Examples abound.
In viewing a painting, aesthetic knowledge may be more relevant than
scientific. In personal relationships - personal knowledge is more relevant
than scientific. Hummel gives a useful analogy of ways that a landscape
might be viewed by different people, by Beethoven, Einstein, Constable, or
King David. An SOS may be viewed by its physical properties or by its
message.
Scientific questions are not the only sort of questions.
How and Why questions are also valid and important.
Examples
The sight of a kettle boiling may give rise to many answers to “why?”.
There are different causes for the one event. Four different causes need to
be recognised. They are the agent, constituents, mechanism and purpose.
Science is concerned with the constituents and mechanisms only, not the
ultimate cause or agent or the purpose. My three grandchildren gave three
explanations to a question about the rain. Why is it raining? One
suggested a scientific answer, the clouds etc., the second suggested the
agent, God, and the third the purpose, to water the plants. All were
correct. They were not alternative but rather complementary answers.
Science answers scientific questions but not all questions. Theology
answers theological questions not scientific questions.

Author: Allan J Day 5-5

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

Scientific explanations and theological explanations are not alternatives.

This is to imply God is a possible “mechanism”. Cf. Atkins who considers
the theological answer is one of “The Lazy Creator”, the soft option.
A God of the Gaps. Let us return to Jayne.
“1. Genesis says the world was made by God, but
2, we know it was made by the Big Bang.”
Statement 1 is true or false on theological grounds. Statement 2 is true
or false on scientific grounds The two statements are not alternatives.
We can believe both to be true without conflict. They answer different
questions. There are different causes, and different methods are needed to
answer these questions. (See Hummell, 1986).
Scientists have always been among the first to recognize this view. Sir
Peter Medawar, a Nobel laureate for his work in immunology, has stated
the situation clearly.
“There is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit upon himself and
upon his profession than roundly to declare - particularly when no
declaration of any kind is called for - that science knows or soon will know
the answers to all questions worth asking, and that questions that do not
admit a scientific answer are in some way non-questions or ’pseudo-
questions‘ that only simpletons ask and only the gullible profess to be able
to answer.” (Medawar P, 1984, The Limits of Science, OUP)

5.2.4 Biblical literalism (Creationism)

Considers the Bible to be the source of scientific information about origins.
Presents a particular biblical interpretation of origins as a basis for a scientific
understanding of creation and rejects the views of contemporary scientists. Thus
creation science starts from a biblical presupposition. We must decide whether it
represents authentic Christianity and/or authentic science.

5.2.5 History of Biblical interpretation of Genesis in the past

Augustine of Hippo and the Church Fathers
Augustine recognised the problem of the 4th day and the second account of
Genesis and considered Gen 1-3 to be non-literal or allegorical.
Galileo and the church
Recognised the problem of heliocentrism and maintained that the Scripture does
not teach science.
Geology and the age of the earth
Archbishop Ussher’s date of creation (4004 BC) was discarded with the
development of modern geology and information about the age of the earth.
Concordance and the Scriptural geologists
In the 19thC many Christians sought to fit the geological account to the bible
account. The two most prominent concordant theories were the Gap theory and
the Day age theory. Others sought to fit science to the bible by suggesting the
special creation of a ready made cosmos that fitted the scientific findings e.g.
Adam’s being created with a navel and trees with annual rings denoting age.
Darwinism and special creation
Darwinism was not consistent with the creation of individual species as suggested
by a literal reading of Genesis 1. Despite this history there are those who still
maintain the scientific accuracy of Scripture with respect to creation.

Author: Allan J Day 5-6

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

Fundamentalism and its 20thC history (See Chapter 3.)

Most of the early anti evolution campaigners accepted an old earth and some
form of “Scriptural geology”. However some of the leaders of the Fundamentalist
movement accepted Darwinian evolution, e.g. Warfield. Espousal of scientific
inerrancy, and a strict biblical literalism, however, have characterised the
development of the Creation Science Movement in the later part of the 20thC. It
has been marked by the legal struggle to prevent the teaching of evolution in
schools.
1925 Scopes trial in Tennessee
This saw the ultimate reversal of the statutes prohibiting the teaching of evolution
in schools.
1957 Sputnik and its effect on US education
It promoted a more active pro evolution stance in biology teaching.
1961 Morris and Whitcomb: The Genesis Flood
Associated with the development of the “Creation Science Movement” and the call
for equal time for evolution and creation science teaching in schools.

5.2.6 Creationism: Creation Science

The following definition was given by the “Creation Science” movement to the
Arkansas court in connection with the case for consideration of equal time with
evolution in school curricula in 1981 (Creation Science 1981 Arkansas legislation
Act 590).
"Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and
inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the
scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden
creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The
insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about
development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only
within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4)
Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's
geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood;
and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.”
The application for equal time was rejected on the grounds that Creation Science
was a religion, not science. It is not authentic science. A US Supreme Court
resolved that an “injunction will be entered permanently prohibiting enforcement
of Act 590. It is ordered this January 5, 1982”.
In 2000, the Kansas Act, which precludes mandatory assessment of evolution in
biology examinations, was rejected.
Description
Creation Science (Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, 1961) has
resurrected some of the outdated theories of science, abandoned by the
professional scientific community, some 150-200 years ago. They involve a
special role for catastrophism and the role of a universal flood. The ideas
originated in a vision to the prophetess of Seventh Day Adventism, Ellen White,
and are promulgated by the geology of McCready Price. They provide “pseudo
scientific” support for a literal interpretation of Genesis and aggressively promote
this position as Christian orthodoxy. Creation Science has proved a highly
successful publicity exercise (particularly in North America). Proponents do not
form a part of the accepted professional scientific community, do not engage in
serious scientific research nor debate the issues on the basis of established

Author: Allan J Day 5-7

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

scientific method. The approach is rather polemic and publicist, actively, and
successfully campaigning, to promote a particular interpretation of Genesis and to
introduce legal constraints on the education system.
Content
Accepts that the findings of modern conventional science conflict with a literal
interpretation of Genesis, and therefore present an “alternative science” -
“creation science”, widely judged to be non-authentic science. See Chapter 4.
Nature of Science.
There are two main aspects.
Young Earth Creationism
Maintains that creation occurred less than 10,000 years ago in 6 x 24 hr
days corresponding to the six days of Gen 1. i.e. adheres to a young earth
- contrary to the findings of current cosmology.
Flood Geology
Geological and paleontological findings are explained by a universal flood.
i.e. contrary to the findings of modern geology. Their position is based on
a particular literal interpretation of Genesis, that gives little attention to
genre or to the contemporary ANE culture. The “findings” of creation
science are required to fit this presupposition. Science thus becomes not
an unqualified search for truth, but rather a “folk science” with an
interpretative axe to grind. This often leads to a lack of integrity and
intellectual honesty which brings legitimate criticism from the scientific
fraternity.
Creation Science
Confuses biblical interpretation with biblical authority, the science of
origins with the doctrine of creation, secondary causes and first causes,
evolution and evolutionism.
It has the following misconceptions about science and faith:-
• That the bible is a scientific textbook whereas it presents eternal
truths in the language of the contemporary culture, cosmology. The
genre needs to be considered.
• That the doctrine of creation is about “How” rather than “Why”.
• That creation is only about beginnings, not about sustenance.
• That the pursuit of science in relation to origins has been usurped
by secular scientists (Plimer, I, 1994, Telling Lies for God - Reason
vs. Creationism, Random House).
• That God’s actions are not manifested in the natural (in biological
evolution and Big Bang cosmology) but only in the supernatural.
Evaluation
It must be asserted that the Bible speaks of ultimate causes, not immediate
(scientific) causes. Therefore there is no conflict. Different questions are being
raised. It must be recognised that there are many possible interpretations of the
creation accounts. One particular literal account cannot be made a mark of
orthodoxy or a basis for (pseudo) science. Proper interpretation on the basis of
good exegetic principles taking into account the genre, purpose and context of
the passage is an appropriate approach to the meaning of a passage. When this is
done there is no need to assert that the bible is in conflict with modern scientific
findings regarding the age of the earth or the origin of humanity. They address
different questions.

Author: Allan J Day 5-8

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

Both Scientism and Creationism perpetuate the myth that science and faith are
in conflict.

5.3 SEPARATION, INDEPENDENCE, CONTRAST

In this model the differences in approach, method and language between the scientific
and theological search for truth are emphasised. It seeks to build walls between Science
and Faith. It claims that Science and Faith provide different answers to the same
questions

5.3.1 Different methods

Science is empirical and experimental, dealing with objective data. It is
repeatable and predictable. Theology is concerned with personal experience and
revelation. It is subjective. It has nothing to say in the scientific realm. Both
approaches however are considered valid approaches to truth. But it is
maintained that they give a different picture of reality. Not one in conflict but a
different view.

5.3.2 Different languages

Science deals with concrete entities whereas theology speaks in the language of
metaphor.

5.3.3 Different domains

Science investigates nature and the finite, whereas theology investigates God, the
spiritual realm and the infinite. These contrasts reflect the separation of science
and theology in the 19th century, and reflect to some degree the antagonism to
the introduction of critical studies of the biblical documents. They also reflect the
neo-orthodoxy of Barth and Bultmann. However while it is important to recognise
the differences between the two approaches, it is also necessary to concede that
the above is too rigid. Theology is after all “The Queen of the Sciences” -
reasoned belief - the search for truth. Its methods and language have important
parallels to science.
On the other hand, in the 20th Century, science is now understood to be much
less objective in its methods, language and even content (see Chapter 4). Truth
is unitary- not fragmented. There is not a separate truth about nature and
another unrelated truth about God. Both form a complete and integrated view of
reality. As Augustine observes, “The search for truth is the search for God - for
God is truth”. Science explores the truth about nature- the creation of the
universe by God’ . Theology explores the truth about God - the God of creation.
One cannot divorce the two.

5.4 COMPLEMENTARITY, DIALOGUE, CONSONANCE

In this model Science and Faith are seen to present complementary answers to
the same questions. They are seen to be in dialogue. There is seen to be one truth,
common truth, but there are two faces of this truth. There are two Books: that of the
World, and of the Word, as suggested by Francis Bacon. General revelation is explored
by science, the truth about nature. Special revelation is explored in Scripture and
experience, the truth about God. These represent complementary views. They must be
in dialogue, interact with each other and complement each other. There are many
interacting facets and boundary questions.

5.4.1 Boundary questions

Theology undergirds science. In many ways one cannot separate science and
faith.

Author: Allan J Day 5-9

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

Theology provides the presuppositions of science. Those of order, of

contingency. It also provides purpose - the teleological dimension.
On the other hand scientific investigation raises non scientific questions
that are important, but outside the domain of science to address. These include
metaphysical questions e.g. the strong anthropic principle, the source of the laws
of physics. Thus science describes but does not explain, whereas theology is
needed to give meaning to science and to the world it describes. They also
include ethical questions such as the use made of science. The source of values
used in science comes from outside science. For example, ecological, bioethical
questions such as are raised by genetic engineering.

5.4.2 Similarities in methodology

This has already been addressed in Chapter 4.
Science is “motivated belief”.
It is based on presuppositions that are not provable. It has content that arises
from observation and experiment. It develops models that best explain the “way
things are” - interpretations of science - theories. Science is thus not just
objective facts, but governed by presuppositions and beliefs.
Theology is “motivated belief”.
It also is based on presuppositions that are not provable. It also has content that
arises from scripture, tradition and experience i.e. there are rational “grounds for
faith”. It also develops models and beliefs that best explain the “way things are”.
Theology is not irrational, myth, or blind faith but based on content. Theology is
not fixed, but open, exploring by reason the “facts about God”. Thus the two
approaches can best make sense of the way things are. Science needs theology
and theology needs science to make sense of the world. Polkinghorne develops
these concepts well in his books.

5.5 INTEGRATION (ASSIMILATION)

Seeks to interrelate science and faith in such a way that science modifies faith and may
be seen to assimilate it. This attempts to develop not just a new natural theology but a
Theology of Nature, a Doctrine of Creation in the light of modern science. This aspect is
perhaps beyond the scope of this book.
There are two dimensions:-
Exploring what nature reveals about God
Awe, Wonder, Meaning. Science and its questions. Theology gives meaning to
nature.
Effect of contemporary science on theology
There are many contemporary issues such as quantum uncertainty or
indeterminism (see discussion in chapter 2) and chaos theory (see also chapter
2) that raise questions regarding God’s action in the world.

5.5.1 Is there a new natural theology?

Science is evolutionary, time related, open, non-determinist. What does this
imply for our understanding of God, humanity and nature? This leads on to a
consideration of process theology and panentheism - God as open, self limiting,
immanent, at one with nature, and the world is envisaged as God’s body.
Humanity is seen as a unity with nature, oneness with God. The world is seen in
ecological oneness, having an eschatological destiny. These problems need
exploring, but threaten an understanding of orthodoxy as revealed in Scripture.

Author: Allan J Day 5-10

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

The following issues need addressing.

God as changeable. Limited, developing - process theology. But what
about transcendence and the sovereignty of God?
Humanity - as part of creation. What about the image of God and
humanity as the pinnacle of creation?
The world as organism. Is there a return to naturalism, even pantheism?

5.6 REJECTION — NEW AGE CONSIDERATIONS

Post modernism rejects both science and faith - substituting a pseudo-science and a
pseudo-faith. There are two aspects:-
Alternative science
Relativism, subjectivism, science as one of many views. Rejects an ordered world,
determined and explorable by science and verifiable by science. Substitutes a
magic, mystic, medieval world.
Alternative faith
Rejects a theistic creation and a monotheistic understanding of nature.
Substitutes a monistic view - pantheism, naturalism e.g. Gaia and ecology,
Nature as an organism.

5.7 CONCLUSIONS - SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY ARE

COMPLEMENTARY
The conflict picture is inadequate both historically and philosophically. Science informs
while theology raises “why” questions. Reductionism does not account for everything.
Brings input into Scriptural interpretation. See the section on Complementarity. Raises
implications for our understanding of God and humanity. How autonomous is the
physical world? How autonomous are we?
Theology expands, science explains. Science alone does not consider purpose. Scientific
discoveries raise ethical questions regarding how the knowledge should be used but does
not answer them.

Author: Allan J Day 5-11

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 5 2009

5.8 REFERENCES

Barbour, I, 1990, Religion in an Age of Science, SCM, London, Chapter 1, pp. 3-30.
Berry, RJ, 1981, Real Science, Real Faith, Monarch, 1981.
Bube, R, 1995, Putting it All Together- Seven Patterns for relating Science and the
Christian Faith, University Press of America, Lanham.
Geisler, N, 1982, ‘Creationism - a Case for Equal Time’, Christianity Today, 19 March, p.
27.
Haught, J, 1995, Science and Religion, Paulist Press, NJ.
Holder, R, 1993, Nothing but Atoms and Molecules, Monarch, London.
Hummel, C, 1986, The Creation Science Controversy, Chapter 12 in Hummel, The
Galilieo Connection, IVP, Downer’s Grove.
Hummell, CE, 1986, The Galileo Connection - Resolving Conflicts between Science and
the Bible, IVP, Downer’s Grove, pp. 260-261.
Jeeves, MA,1969, Scientific Enterprise and Christian Faith, Tyndale Press, London, p.
103.
Livingstone, D, 1987, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Moore, JR, 1979, The Post-Darwin Controversies, A study of the Protestant struggle to
come to terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1879-1900. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Numbers, R, 1986, ‘The Creationists’, Chapter 5 in Lindberg, DC, Numbers, R, God and
Nature - Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Numbers, R, 1992, The Creationists, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Peters, T, 1996, Theology and Science, Where Are We?, Zygon 31(2).
Polkinghorne, JC, Multiple works as listed in Introduction
Russell, CA, 1985, Cross Currents - Interactions between Science and Faith, IVP,
Leicester. Reprinted by Christian Impact.
Russell, CA, 1989, ‘The Conflict Manager and its Social Origins’, Science and Christian
Belief, vol. 1(1), pp. 3-29.
Snow, R, 1990, ‘A Critique of the Creation Science Movement’, Chapter 8 in Van Till, H
and others, Portraits of Creation, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Stannard, R, 1993, Doing away with God, Marshall Pickering, London.
Stannard, R, 1996, Science and Wonders, Faber, London
Young, D, 1995, The Biblical Flood, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Author: Allan J Day 5-12

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

Chapter 6 COSMOLOGY, CREATION AND THE

BIBLICAL RECORD

John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-1

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

CONTENTS – CHAPTER 6
Chapter 6 COSMOLOGY, CREATION AND THE BIBLICAL RECORD. 6-1
6.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................. 6-4
6.2 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF CREATION ................................ 6-4
6.2.1 Aspects .................................................................................................... 6-4
6.2.2 Genesis input ......................................................................................... 6-5
6.2.3 Not just in Genesis............................................................................... 6-5
6.2.4 Theological affirmations ..................................................................... 6-6
6.2.5 Misconceptions ...................................................................................... 6-7
6.2.6 Importance ............................................................................................. 6-7
6.3 SCIENTIFIC PICTURE OF ORIGINS ................................. 6-8
6.3.1 Developments in physics up to 1900............................................. 6-8
6.3.2 Nature of physical laws ...................................................................... 6-8
6.3.3 The revolution in 20th century physics .......................................... 6-8
6.3.4 The rise of quantum mechanics....................................................... 6-9
6.3.5 Einstein’s Special and General Relativity .................................. 6-10
6.3.6 Chaos theory – a complete surprise!........................................... 6-11
6.3.7 Cosmology - origin of the universe ................................................611
6.4 THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF BIG BANG COSMOLOGY
…………………………………………………………………………… 6-14
6.4.1 Science is wrong - Creation Science approach ......................... 6-14
6.4.2 Science and Religion are separate and unrelated and should
be kept so ............................................................................................................ 6-14
6.4.3 Consider the implications of modern cosmology in relation to a
consideration of creation................................................................................. 6-14
6.5 THEOLOGY AND THE PHYSICISTS ................................. 6-15
6.6 RESPONDING TO COSMOLOGY...................................... 6-15
6.6.1 Negative responses ........................................................................... 6-15
6.6.2 Positive Responses............................................................................. 6-16
6.6.3 Anthropic Principle ............................................................................. 6-17
6.6.4 Hawking and Creation?..................................................................... 6-18
6.6.5 Quantum Gravity................................................................................ 6-18
6.6.6 Seeking a Theory of Everything .................................................... 6-18
6.6.7 Hartle/Hawking Speculation, No Boundary models - No
singularity ............................................................................................................ 6-18
6.6.8 Who is the Scientists ‘God’?............................................................ 6-18
6.6.9 Is creation ‘ex nihilo’ consistent with modern cosmology? .. 6-19
6.7 IMPLICATIONS FOR GOD’S CONTINUING ACTIVITY—THE
GOD OF SPECIAL PROVIDENCE ............................................. 6-19
6.7.1 How does God interact with the world ?..................................... 6-19
6.7.2 The problem of natural evil............................................................. 6-19
6.7.3 Process theology................................................................................. 6-20
6.8 IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIAN HOPE – ESCHATOLOGY ......
………………………………………………………………………………….6-20

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-2

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

6.8.1 Scientific speculation — Persistence of a non-personal

immortality .......................................................................................................... 6-20
6.8.2 Is Christian eschatology limited to part of the universe? ..... 6-20
6.9 CREATION AND THE BIBLICAL RECORD ........................ 6-20
6.9.1 Historically —many approaches - not just literal/allegorical 6-20
6.9.2 Interpretative principles................................................................... 6-21
6.9.3 Literary framework ............................................................................ 6-21
6.9.4 Literary structure of Gen 1.............................................................. 6-21
6.10 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................. 6-21
6.10.1 Impact of physics on 21st century cosmology....................... 6-21
6.10.2 Scientific and theological concepts in consonance .............. 6-22
6.10.3 Exegetical principles— genre, culture, context are important
…………………………………………………………………………………………..22
6.10.4 Creation is important for cosmology........................................ 6-22
6.10.5 Cosmology is important for creation........................................ 6-22
6.11 REFERENCES................................................................. 6-23

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-3

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

6.1 INTRODUCTION
During the past two centuries, physics has been extraordinarily successful. As an
emerging discipline in its own right it was well established by the end of the 19th
Century, known very often in those days as Natural Philosophy. During that time physics
has underpinned much of modern technology including electricity, the steam engine, the
internal combustion engine, electronics, automation, computers and modern information
systems. Physics is the primary scientific discipline, it depends on the use of
mathematics as both a tool and a language and it remains the fundamental science
directed to understanding the processes of nature. Physics makes particular use of
symmetry principles which are essential and provide an economy of logic.
Much of what will be said about 20th Century physics can be found in Quarks, Chaos and
Christianity by Polkinghorne (1994), in other books by Polkinghorne and several of the
other titles listed in the references. Polkinghorne has articulated two very important
principles:- First he notes the amazing fruitfulness of the world both cosmologically and
biologically. Then he states (Polkinghorne, 1994, p.43)
the ‘evolving world (is) to be understood theologically as a world allowed by the
Creator to make itself to a large degree’.
That is, creation is a continuous process and we do not live in a clockwork universe.
Secondly, he reminds us that there are different categories of statements and we should
differentiate between e.g. theological and scientific statements.
For the moment it will suffice to realise that physics provides a consistent understanding
of the physical processes that occurred in the early universe and up to the present time.
We understand that the age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years. We have a good
picture of the conditions required for the production of hydrogen, helium and lithium and
the formation of the rest of the 92 elements, the subsequent evolution of galaxies, stars,
supernovae etc., and the formation of our own solar system and similar entities
elsewhere in the universe. The question for Christians in particular is what impact should
this new understanding of our world that has come from physics have on our theology of
Creation? We shall need to heed Polkinghorne’s warning that science and theology use
different categories.

6.2 BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF CREATION

“I Believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth” from the Apostles
Creed was originally prepared as a statement against Gnosticism. In Polkinghorne’s
Gifford Lectures, published as Science and Christian Belief, each chapter is based on a
statement from the Creed.

6.2.1 Aspects
Creation Originans
The understanding of creation as the beginning of space and time. Such an
understanding has been a basic understanding of theology. Augustine perceived
the cosmos to be created not so much in time but with time. Before creation, only
God existed. The 20th century has seen a remarkable change in the scientific level
of understanding of the creation of the universe based on new understandings in
physics. This has called into question the literal interpretation of Genesis and how
God acts in the world – then and now. It is necessary to move well away from the
notion of the watchmaker God (Deism) who wound up the clock and left it to run
by itself. Thoughtful Christians would not hold that view today. As scientific
knowledge has developed those who have sought to deny the existence of God
have found in scientific arguments a reason for their position. We shall argue in
this chapter that the existence of God is not dependent on how much we know
about the world.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-4

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

Creation Ex Nihilo - Creation out of nothing

We can still affirm creation by the will of a transcendent God. The theological and
biblical concept is of creation ex nihilo: God bringing into being, that which had
no being. The notion of ‘ex nihilo’ creation has been a hard doctrine to grasp for
those who can only understand something as being made out of something that
already exists. Before creation only God existed. It leads inevitably to the
question who made God as if he were of the same substance as our universe, and
ourselves. We shall see that the origin of the universe at a singularity in space-
time does not require any prior matter.
Creation Continua - General Providence, Sustenance
God’s immanence leads to a theology of providence which holds that God is
involved in the universe always and at all times. We are not able to say how that
occurs.

6.2.2 Genesis input

Gen 1:1
The fundamental presupposition of the Bible is of creation ‘ex nihilo’, out of
nothing but not out of chaos, although the basic motif of Gen. 1 is of God
bringing order out of chaos. The beginning statement of Genesis is the primary
faith statement regarding our attitude to God as Creator.
Genesis 1:1-2:4a
Two accounts are given, the first in Gen. 1:1-2:4a. The six day framework paints
a picture of creation by command. “God spoke and it was done.” Those of us who
adopt the modern cosmology see the Genesis 1 account as a literary device
establishing the nature of God and of his creation. It is set in the context of
Ancient Near East (ANE) cosmology, but should not be seen as a scientific
account, nor the days as six actual 24-hour days.
Genesis 2,3
The second creation account is set in a much more narrative and
anthropomorphic style. Fundamentally, Genesis chapters 2 & 3 emphasise the
relationship between God and humanity. In particular, Gen. 2: 7 indicates the
special relationship between us and the universe – we are made from the same
stuff as the rest of the universe, in fact from the remnants of burnt-out stars.

6.2.3 Not just in Genesis

The role of God as creator is a recurrent theme throughout both Old and New
Testaments and provides us with a picture of the nature of God as an object for
worship rather than as a “mechanism” for creation. Scripture texts referring to
creation have no explanatory power in the sense of modern science and have a
different on-going purpose, to call us to worship.
Psalms
Psalms 8:3-8; 19; 104:10-14, 24-29, 147:8-9, 148:5-6. Many of the Psalms
express the wonder of the created order. It is a response of gratitude to the God
to whom all is attributed. It is the language of faith and of worship. God’s actions
in both creation and sustenance (making the grass to grow etc.) are affirmed.
Wisdom
Job 9:5-12; Job 38:39-40; Proverbs 8 and Ecclesiastes 12. Passages from the
Wisdom Literature of the Bible affirm the role of God as Creator. It is to God as
creator and sustainer that Job is referred in his problems.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-5

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

Prophets
Amos 5:8, Isaiah 42:5-9, 66:22. Again God as creator forms an important
emphasis. It is the God of creation that is the God of Israel, to whom they are
responsible.
New Testament
The prologue to John’s Gospel (John 1), the great statement of Colossians 1:15
and the quote from Paul’s Areopagus sermon in Acts 17:24 stand as the great
New Testament statements that affirm God (as Trinity) as Creator (and
sustainer).

6.2.4 Theological affirmations

The doctrine of Creation is summarised in a number of affirmations, none of
which refer to the way in which the cosmos originated, or the scientific
mechanisms of cosmology. John Thompson (2007) comments regarding Genesis
1-3,
“That whatever one's view of the literary nature of these chapters
reasonable agreement could be reached as to what were the basic
assumptions which find expression here. One man may affirm that these
chapters should be read quite literally denying all use of metaphorical or
symbolic language. Another may affirm that the chapters are in the style
of poetry, being full of symbolic language, figures of speech and artificially
constructed literary forms. But whatever view is adopted in regard to the
literary nature of the chapters, the definition of the central affirmations
should be approximately the same, for they represent beliefs about the
nature of God of man and of the world”.
These affirmations may be listed as under:-
Creation is separate from God
All that is created is not God, that which is not created is God. This is clear from
Genesis 1.1 and throughout Scripture. The Biblical writers avoid the trap of
pantheism. (See Chapter 3.)
Creation is contingent, dependent on God
The biblical writers all agree that creation depends on God. God is the only
“necessary” being i.e. one not dependent on anything else. Creation is dependent
on God for both its origination and its continuance, for its order and its beauty.
Creation is good
Our experience affirms the statements following each day in Genesis 1 ‘and God
saw that it was good’. When we see a beautiful scene, a beautiful sunrise or
sunset or in the scientific lab when one realises the intrinsic beauty of an atom or
a molecule, we are affirming that it is good. Nevertheless we shall have to
contend with why not everything is perfect: some are born with genetic disorders,
there is evil operating in the world, and the fall from which humanity (if not the
whole creation) needed to be redeemed.
Therefore there can be:-
No polytheism
That is a multitude of gods. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all
monotheistic religions. Christianity goes further as trinitarian with the
Trinity as a model of how the Christian church has tried to grapple with
the nature of God given the revelation in Christ and the role and work of
the Holy Spirit.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-6

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

No monism, pantheism
That God is identical to the universe, the universe and God being one, or
the universe being divine or god.
No dualism re good/evil
That is the presence of two distinct principles of good and evil, with a
struggle for supremacy. None of these theological affirmations (of
monotheistic creation) are at odds with modern science. Indeed many of
them form the basis of modern science (see Chapter 1). Other concepts of
God associated with Eastern religions or with supernaturalism, associated
as they are with either a circular and eternal universe or a disordered,
unpredictable universe, are much more at variance with a scientific world
picture. (See Chapter 3).

6.2.5 Misconceptions
Several misconceptions which lead to difficulty in the science faith debate need to
be laid to rest.
Genesis 1-3 is not history
The early chapters of Genesis are not history in the modern sense. In Gen. 1-11,
the so-called Genesis Prologue, we are dealing with what has variously been
called “myth”, “saga”, “protohistory”. Genesis 1 and the second creation account
in Chapter 2 are not historical or literal statements. They remain valid for us
today at the start of the 21st century precisely because they are the story of the
universe, expressed in a non literal form.
Genesis 1-3 is not science
These stories are set in the ancient near-east in the context of a three-decker
universe. The cosmology implied appears quaint to us at the beginning of the 21st
century. Yet as modern people we have no difficulty relating to it and seeing our
own response in awe at the creation as we experience it or to realise that Genesis
3 describes the journey all of us have taken.
Genesis 1-3 is, rather, a theological statement about the nature of God.
The primary purpose of the Genesis accounts of creation (Chapters 1 & 2) is to
attribute all we see around us, the whole universe, as being due to the will of
God. It addresses the relationship between human beings and God and the world.

6.2.6 Importance
The importance of creation lies in its being foundational to Christian doctrine.
Genesis 1 & 2 establish God as Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. This is the
Christian God. We also find the universe to be a fundamentally good place and we
depend on its functioning for our survival. For example we depend on weather
and successful growth of crops somewhere in the world, otherwise we’d not
survive. Creation and science are integrally bound together.
A basis for Christian worship
We have already referred to the place of the Psalms, in particular those that
affirm the origin of our world, in worship. In many respects Gen. 1 might be
considered a hymn of praise to the God of Israel who creates effortlessly by a
word. Israel were not primarily interested in the scientific details of origins, but
rather who their God was —“The Creator of heaven and earth” — not just some
tribal deity.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-7

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

6.3 SCIENTIFIC PICTURE OF ORIGINS

6.3.1 Developments in physics up to 1900

The 19th century physicists held a deterministic view going back at least to
Newton; and the equations they discovered appeared to support that idea.
However, the elegant developments of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics
by Boltzmann and Gibbs left open issues that ultimately required the ideas of
quantum physics and the results of statistical outcomes. Newton’s great
contributions of the 17th century remained paramount in mechanics and
astronomy. The world seemed to be well ordered.
Towards the end of the 19th century, physics appeared to have reached its zenith.
It was rounded off through Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism and the
prediction that there should be electromagnetic radiation. There was a great deal
of optimism that physics was more or less complete. The prevailing view was of a
deterministic universe and there was nothing in the physics of the day to suggest
otherwise. That changed dramatically in 1900 with Planck’s quantum hypothesis
which successfully tidied up outstanding problems with electromagnetic radiation.
The 19th century heralded many discoveries in physics as the new knowledge that
was going to do away with the need for God. Something like this happened in
response to Darwinism. As a re-run of the same tape, many herald the
developments in genetics and molecular biology as being able to do just that.
Paul Davies, not a Christian, acknowledges that there are still a lot of scientists
who are Christians — and that surprises and continues to embarrass him.

6.3.2 Nature of physical laws

Physical laws are descriptions of physical events, defined after usually much
painstaking data gathering. They are not what make things happen! The
underlying mathematical form in which the ‘laws’ are expressed leads people like
Paul Davies to speculate about what lies behind them. God?

6.3.3 The revolution in 20th century physics

The turning points were Planck’s quantum radiation theory in 1900 and Einstein’s
famous paper on Special Relativity in 1905. These have changed the way we
think about the world far more dramatically than could have been imagined 100
years ago. The linking of space-time and the fact that observers in different
frames of reference would view the same events differently marked the most
significant paradigm shift in human thought since Newton, notwithstanding
Darwin’s contributions to biology. It has not stopped there in the 20th century and
while physics may have been more recently overshadowed by developments in
biology, the level of understanding of our world and of cosmology is remarkable
and one of the great developments in human history. Quantum mechanics not
only changed our view of atoms, molecules and solids, but continues to raise
important metaphysical questions about the role of indeterminacy (or chance) in
individual events, and the limits to the measurement process itself. In our day we
are very aware of the rise of clever and accessible technology. The notebook
computer on which this chapter was prepared is, in some sense, a miracle and
yet even now we are apt to take it for granted. The modern PC and notebook
computer required a basic understanding of quantum mechanics and solid state
physics and a few Nobel Prizes along the way.
Modern physics from Newton to the present day depends on mathematical
equations to clothe its ideas. There is a relatively small but finite number of basic
equations that define the whole of physics and by means of which we produce the
cosmology of the Big Bang. These are Newton’s law of gravitation (17th century),
Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism (19th century), Einstein’s equations of

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-8

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

special and general relativity, the Schrodinger equation in quantum mechanics

and the equations of quantum field theories, all of which belong to the 20th
century. Are these equations invented or discovered? We don't know but what we
do know is that they form the most consistently tested theoretical basis of
anything known in human history. The reliability of the mathematical description
is quite remarkable and there is the ring of truth about them! Paul Davies is quick
to acknowledge that fact. Davies also comments, as have others such as Dirac,
on their intrinsic beauty. Thus there is an important aesthetic quality about the
mathematical statements of physics that has sometimes been used as a guide to
theoretical physicists.

6.3.4 The rise of quantum mechanics

Planck’s radiation theory - the birth of quantum physics (1900)
The birth of quantum physics was Planck’s theory of electromagnetic radiation.
Planck introduced the idea of quanta of energy – whether visible light, gamma
rays or radio waves or any part of the electromagnetic spectrum – which solved
the dilemmas of the previous century. Even though quantum physics went
through two further phases of development viz. the Bohr model of the hydrogen
atom (1912-3) and the independent discoveries by Heisenberg and Schrodinger
of quantum mechanics in 1925, Planck’s theory remains correct today. It is still
used to measure the temperatures of the surfaces of stars, to determine the
microwave background from the remnant of the Big Bang and to work out the
properties of solar collectors!
Quantum mechanics
Quantum mechanics is based on the idea of a wave function to describe the way
e.g. an electron is spread out in its orbit about the nucleus of an atom. The
quantum mechanical picture of the physics at the atomic and molecular scale is
very accurate. Theory and experiment have been tested to great precision. It
turns out that at its heart, in quantum mechanics there is an intrinsic level of
uncertainty (or indeterminacy), and this has opened up the debate about chance
and determinism. It is Heisenberg’s famous uncertainty principle that limits our
knowledge of systems at the scale of atoms or smaller. While measurements of
individual events lead to a scatter of data, on average one always gets the same
answer. An example is the emission of light by atoms of, say, hydrogen. The
spectral lines (‘colours’) are always the same whenever one makes the
measurements but we cannot predict where the light from a particular atom will
sit on the particular spectral curve. A battle raged between Bohr (and his
Copenhagen School) and Max Born in Germany about how to interpret the wave
function of quantum mechanics. Matter has a wavelike character at some times
and at other times a particle-like nature. It depends on what experiment one is
doing. In the end it was Max Born who recognised that quantum mechanics deals
in probabilities. Nonetheless, we still recognise the need to hold the wave and
particle pictures in tension. The majority of physicists find there is no conflict. In
electron diffraction, important in probing the structures of solids, the electrons
must be thought of as waves. In an electron accelerator in high energy physics,
the particle picture is what is needed.
Heisenberg indeterminacy
The uncertainty principle leads to the insight that the very making of observations
influences the outcome. The most familiar statement is that it is impossible to
know where an electron is and at the same time to know how fast it is moving.
The point is that measurements always use photons of electromagnetic energy
(which might be X-rays, visible light or microwaves) and they interact with the
very object one is measuring. Thus quantum mechanics spells the end of the
deterministic universe.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-9

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

The four forces in Nature and ultimate structure

An alternative way to summarise physics is through the four different forces in
nature which imply the finite number of equations referred to earlier. They are:-
• Gravity which holds up to astronomical distances. It is believed to operate
through particles called gravitons which have not yet been detected.
• The electromagnetic force: that force which holds atoms together. The
force between electric charges is mediated by photons, which are the
quanta of electromagnetic radiation (including light). This is the force that
holds atoms together and underpins chemistry and biology.
• The weak nuclear force which gives rise to radioactivity. Under the
conditions in the early universe after the Big Bang, the weak nuclear force
and the electromagnetic force were first of all the same but later became
distinct through what is called symmetry breaking.
• The strong nuclear force which acts on trios of quarks to form protons and
neutrons. It should hold together neutrinos! This force is mediated by
elementary particles called gluons!

6.3.5 Einstein’s Special and General Relativity

Special Relativity
Einstein’s Special Relativity (1905) is based on two assumptions:- the speed of
light is constant for all observers, and, the laws of physics are the same to
observers moving at a constant speed relative to one another This led to the
ideas of length contraction and time dilation. That is, an observer seeing a
moving object pass at a constant speed measures a characteristic reduction in its
length (Fitzgerald contraction) and says that the clock in the moving frame runs
slow (time dilation). The latter leads to the Twin Paradox. If one twin stays on
earth and the other twin travels for 20 years in a space ship at a constant speed
relative to the earth, when he returns, he will be younger! Is this true? About 20
years ago, two Boeing 707’s equipped with atomic clocks (with an accuracy of 1
part in about 1 billion) flew around the earth in opposite directions. The
differences in the time recorded by the atomic clocks on both aircraft based on
their relative speeds fitted Einstein’s equation exactly! The decay of cosmic rays
entering the earth also confirms this time dilation! For objects travelling close to
the speed of light, things look very different to someone observing from say the
earth. Thus we must abandon the distinction between our three space
coordinates and add time as a fourth dimension. Thus we speak of space-time. In
Special Relativity, gravity enters as in Newtonian or classical physics – the force
between point objects (or spheres) varies as one divided by the square of the
distance between them.
General Relativity
In General Relativity (1916), gravity leads to the curvature of spacetime. It is a
very different perspective. This means that a beam of light passing near a
massive object such as a star, is bent. Light travels in straight lines but if the
space is itself warped, then the light can be shown to have been deflected. This
has been observed for light from objects in space. It is also used in what is known
as gravitational lensing, used to observe very distant objects which lie behind
massive objects such as black holes. Of course if the light gets too close to a
black hole it will be sucked in and disappear! General relativity calculations are
accurate to 1 in 1014 (limited by the accuracy of earth clocks). General relativity
predicts the occurrence of black holes under some circumstances and in its
original form predicts the expansion of the universe from a Big Bang. We shall
consider cosmology later.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-10

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

The Search for a Theory of Everything

The search for a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or Theory of Everything (TOE) is
part of the quest undertaken by people like Stephen Hawking and others. Thus
far it has only proved possible to unify the electromagnetic force and the weak
nuclear force, relevant in the early universe. Steven Weinberg, in a lecture to the
American Physical Society Centenary Meeting in Atlanta (March 1999) spoke of a
further unification that includes the strong nuclear force. However, without a
quantum theory of gravitation, which does not yet exist, it will not be possible to
achieve a GUT. Hawking believes that if a GUT is achieved, there will be no need
for God for we will know the ‘mind of God’.

6.3.6 Chaos theory – a complete surprise!

There is a new class of phenomena discovered only recently. Even in ‘classical
physics’ there are some processes for which the equations lead to two different
outcomes. This surprising result occurs within ‘deterministic’ classical physics! An
example often quoted concerns the butterfly in Gabon that flutters its wings
leading to changed weather patterns over Asia! Different initial (or starting
conditions) lead to different outcomes.

6.3.7 Cosmology - origin of the universe

Harvard astronomer Edwin Hubble showed in 1929 that the galaxies are all
moving away from each other and he was able for the first time to address the
immensity of the universe. There are known to be more than 100 billion galaxies,
each of which contains perhaps 100 billion main sequence stars like our sun. The
clear implication is that there was a beginning, now called the ‘Big Bang’ and that
since then space has been expanding. His observations were based on the red-
shift of the light received from galaxies which confirms they are moving away
from us. Cf. Steady State Theory.
Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity was shown early on to lead to an
expanding universe and one, therefore, with a beginning. This did not appeal to
Einstein who added to the equations of General Relativity what he called the
cosmological constant in order to stop the expansion. Fred Hoyle and others after
WWII until the mid-60’s pushed a Steady State model of the universe – without
beginning and without end, in spite of the generally held view of the Big Bang and
an expanding universe. Recently Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge (an astronomer) and
Hoyle’s erstwhile student, J V Narlikar (back in Pakistan) have tried to revive their
theory. The reason for this is that the idea of a beginning is awkward if you are
an atheist!
Evidence for Big Bang - Hubble red shift
Light observed from distant galaxies is red shifted. This means the characteristic
spectral lines (or colours if they occur as visible light) have smaller wavelengths
than in the laboratory. This correlates with the speeds with which they are
moving away from us. Hubble introduced a famous constant, the Hubble Constant
whose value is not known precisely. If you divide the Hubble Constant into 1, you
get the age of the universe. Since the universe is expanding, an observer on
earth would say clocks ought to run more slowly in distant galaxies. Supernova
explosions have proved helpful in this regard.
Big Bang cosmology—nature of the cosmos
Several features of the universe can be derived from big bang cosmology. They
can be summarised. The universe is
Very large - 100 billion galaxies, 100 billion stars in each
Very old - 15 billion years

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-11

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

Temporal - Finite - Time and space both begin at the initial singularity.
Standard cosmology - an expanding universe
The universe began at a singularity, a point of infinite density. Originally there
was no space, time or matter! Hawking and Penrose suggested in the 1960’s that
there was probably a definite origin of the universe. This required the existence of
black holes to provide sufficient mass to account for the rate of expansion of the
universe. Their ideas were in contrast to the steady state models of Hoyle, Bondi
and others popular at the time. The universe had a simple beginning: it was hot,
there was a soup of fundamental particles which have strange names — quarks,
leptons, gauge bosons (gluons, W/Z bosons and photons). Before 10-11 seconds
(one hundred billionth of a second) had elapsed, the energy density in the hot
particle soup (thermal plasma) was greater than the density of matter. As the
universe expanded it cooled. The next level was the development of
microstructure: quarks were confined and formed neutrons and protons after t ~
10-5 secs (one hundred thousandth of a second) had elapsed. There was further
formation of neutrons and protons, some nuclear fusion of protons to give
deuterium, the two forms of helium(3He, 4He) and lithium from about 1/100 of a
second to 200 secs. Atoms were formed somewhat later at about 1013 secs (3000
years). Large scale structure formation occurred very much later when the matter
density exceeded the radiation density at about t=1011 sec (100 billion seconds).
Gravity acted to form what are referred to as inhomogeneities— galaxies, clusters
of galaxies, and superclusters.
Many universes or a particular universe
There has been a good deal of speculation about other worlds, other universes.
We may speculate though it is doubtful that it is very fruitful to do so. We have to
deal with the fact that there is something and not nothing, that we and other life
forms live and life can be sustained on this particular planet. Polkinghorne
reminds us that the emergence of any particular form of life is always a possible
outcome of evolution but that the world in becoming, in going on creating itself,
has a certain unpredictability about it.
Question marks!
There are some outstanding problems, not least of which is the search for dark
matter. There is not enough mass in the visible parts of the galaxies to account
for the rate of expansion of the universe. This is where Stephen Hawking made
his name by postulating and describing black holes— small ultra-high density
objects (collapsed neutron stars). Black holes have been observed indirectly,
originally by Nobel laureates, Hulse and Taylor, from a binary pulsar – a pair of
neutron stars orbiting one another, one of which is dark (deduced to be a black
hole). This was inferred from the pattern of rotation of the visible star. If the
density inhomogeneities had not occurred, there would be no stars, galaxies,
planets, indeed no universe as we know it. Then there is the absence of
antimatter.
In 1928, the English physicist, Dirac, predicted that in addition to matter there
should be anti-matter. In the early universe matter and anti-matter would have
been present in roughly equal amounts but early on the balance tipped towards
matter! Anti-matter particles are found in cosmic rays and they can also be
produced in accelerator experiments.
Time relations - the nature of singularity, the first 10-43 secs
This very short time is known as Planck Time. Physics can say nothing about what
happened before that time elapsed. But we don’t then jump in and attribute that
to God; that would be to return to the God of the Gaps idea where God exists
only in the gaps in our knowledge.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-12

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

Weinberg (1977) in The first three minutes explains how protons and neutrons
were formed in about the first second after the Big Bang, and how Hydrogen and
Helium (in the ratio of 3:1) were formed from protons and neutrons after about 3
minutes.
Sequence of events

The following sequence is adapted from Wilkinson (1997, p. 39 Fig 3:2.

Big Bang sequence from singularity to the present
• Today 13.7 Billion yrs
• Planets formed 10 Billion yrs
• Galaxies formed 1 Billion yrs
• Atoms formed 105-106years
• Nuclei formed 3 minutes
• Quarks to Protons and Neutrons 10-4 secs
• Weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces separate 10-10 secs
• Strong nuclear force separates 10-35 secs
• Planck time 10-43 secs
• Big Bang singularity time =0.
Hydrogen to Helium ratio and relative abundances of elements
It has been possible to calculate the relative abundances of the lighter elements
to very high precision. The relative abundances of hydrogen (H) (including
deuterium or heavy hydrogen, D), the two isotopes of helium (3He, 4He) and
lithium (7Li) are key factors in confirming the correctness of our understanding of
the events following the Big Bang. Hydrogen is 100,000 times more abundant
than deuterium and three times more abundant than helium.
2.7 K Residual Microwave Radiation
One experimental result in 1963 changed everything. Working at the Bell
Telephone Labs in the USA, Penzias and Wilson observed the background
radiation from the early universe with a radiation curve suggesting a temperature
about 2.728K (degrees absolute, cooler than liquid helium). This was crucial
evidence but there is more! This radiation comes from the early universe, from
the period when electrons and nuclei formed atoms (1013 sec or 1000 billion
seconds after the Big Bang). This had been predicted in the early 1940’s by
Alpher, Bethe and Gamow, who also explained how hydrogen produced helium in
the Big Bang.
Lumpiness of space
In 1992 using careful satellite data, one remaining puzzle in the jigsaw was
solved. The cosmic background is not exactly the same in all directions,
something we call anisotropy. There are temperature fluctuations of about 3 parts
in 100,000 which imply density fluctuations required for production of the light
elements and the formation of galaxies. It is sometimes referred to as the
lumpiness of matter.
Destiny of the Universe - Scientific Eschatology
There are only two options in Big Bang cosmology. Either the universe will stop
expanding and then turn in on itself (The Big Crunch) or go on expanding forever.
Our earth will burn up and become a Red Giant in about 7 billion years so the
cosmic history of mankind for instance will not be forever on this planet! The

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-13

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

future of the universe depends on the nature of the balance between gravitational
attraction, which depends on mass and distance, and of expansion resulting from
the energy of the Big Bang. Thus there are two extreme possibilities but
predicting the outcomes is difficult since the mass of the universe is not known
accurately.
Our cosmological destiny can be summarised as follows:-
Either, continued expansion and Heat Death
Our sun has about 7 Billion years left! So our local system won’t last
forever in any case even if the universe were to go on expanding forever.
Or, the Big Crunch
Gravitational collapse to a singularity being the reverse of the Big Bang!

6.4 THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF BIG BANG COSMOLOGY

We can respond to scientific cosmology in a variety of ways.
Implications for both Creation and Eschatology
Creation - What has the Big Bang to say about Creation? Eschatology - What has the Big
Crunch to say about Christian Hope?
Three approaches:-

6.4.1 Science is wrong - Creation Science approach

Creationists believe that historical science such as cosmology can only be
discerned by a literal understanding of Scripture and hence scientific cosmology
must be wrong. The so-called creationist idea of a literal six day creation in
4004BC is simply not in accord with the facts as we now know them. The
consistency between the cosmological, geological and biological stories of the
universe make nonsense of theologies based on out-of-date cosmologies. An
important principle is the need for consonance between different types of
explanation of reality, creation included.

6.4.2 Science and Religion are separate and unrelated and should be
kept so
This is one of the four categories Ian Barbour notes regarding how Science and
Religion have often been thought about (See Chapter 5). Surely when theology is
seeking to reflect on the meaning of the universe and of creation, and science is
speaking about the same things from its own point of view, it makes sense to
look for proper connections between them. Indeed it is becoming fairly obvious
that theology and science are increasingly asking the same kinds of metaphysical
questions, the most fundamental one being why we are here at all.

6.4.3 Consider the implications of modern cosmology in relation to a

consideration of creation
This does not mean adapting the theology to the latest scientific theory, but
rather to critically examine it in the light of current scientific concepts. When we
say that the cosmological, geological and biological stories form a consistent
picture of the physical world, we are not implying that they are complete, or that
they will not face some changes in the future. What we are saying is that they
have such a degree of internal consistency to give us confidence that they do in
fact faithfully report reality. Theologies, particularly relating to creation, that
ignore or avoid the findings of modern science are of little value and give no
credibility to the Faith.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-14

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

6.5 THEOLOGY AND THE PHYSICISTS

John Polkinghorne, writing as a Christian, has articulated an enlightened view of
Natural Theology. We must also credit Paul Davies, not a Christian, with honestly
grappling with Natural Theology. The question is how far one can go in finding
evidence for God from the world around, from our cosmology, geology and
biology. There are as many answers as people asking the questions.
Davies sees in the beauty and simplicity of the equations of physics, a mind, a
purpose. God? He remains however essentially a Deist seeing in nature a “mind”
behind the equations. However, if one starts from the viewpoint of faith the
matter can be turned round the other way. The beauty and apparent simplicity is
what we might expect with a bit of experience. It is not only the equations of
quantum physics and relativity that have an intrinsic beauty and simplicity; so too
have the equations from 19th Century physics such as Maxwell’s equations of
electromagnetism.
We should not minimise the attempts that Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking and
others have made to raise some of the big questions about reality. They have
confronted the question of whether there is a God. Their current views are
however that knowledge of all of the necessary equations of physics to explain
the universe would do away with the Christian understanding of God. Van Beukel
gives a readable and useful critique of the much of what Davies and Hawking
have written. Big Bang Cosmology has certainly created considerable interest
from secular scientists wishing to talk about God.
Some widely discussed approaches are given in the following publications:
Paul Davies, The Mind of God.
Hawking, A Brief History of Time.
The latter is better than some critics allow and its difficulties lie in the difficulty of
the concepts. In many respects Hawking is an excellent communicator with the
capacity to ask relevant and important questions. His speculations however
should not be confused with his hard science.
Tipler, The Physics of Immortality
Tipler considers religion as a branch of physics and speculates on an immortality
(bearing little resemblance to that of Christian hope) derived from an extension of
physical laws. Tipler’s concepts it must be emphasised while remaining highly
speculative and even considered to be science fiction and not generally taken
seriously as scientific considerations1.
Capra, The Tao of Physics
Seeks to equate the uncertainties of modern physics with the mysticism of
Eastern Religions. Again a work of speculation, drawing on concepts that many
scientists would question

6.6 RESPONDING TO COSMOLOGY

6.6.1 Negative responses

A view particularly from fundamentalists, that God and the Big Bang are
alternative explanations and therefore one must be rejected. This is simply a

1
James Garth has drawn the authors’ attention to the fact that serious consideration of
Tipler’s views has been given by writers such as David Deutsch, Wolfhart Pannenberg and William
Dembski. Conversely, his views have attracted strong criticism by others such as George Ellis and
Michael Shermer.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-15

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

rejection of God as a God of the Gaps and such a concept is foreign to the God of
Christian Theism.
Hoyle
Fred Hoyle was a long avowed atheist2. He was responsible for the term “Big
Bang” as a term of derision regarding a universe with a beginning. It is also
somewhat ironical that his prediction of the so-called carbon resonance whereby
carbon nuclei could be produced in stars from the fusion of three helium nuclei
has proved to be one of the cornerstones of Big Bang theory and does not
support his own Steady State Theory.
Atkins
Representative of secular humanists who attempt in popular books to use
cosmology as a defence for atheism. Atkins P The Creation 1981 states My aim is
to argue that the universe can come into existence without intervention, and that
there is no need to invoke the idea of a Supreme Being in one of its numerous
manifestations.
Weinberg
Well known both as a Nobel Laureate and for his excellent book, ‘The First Three
Minutes”. He also however adopts an atheist stance, failing to understand the
doctrine of Creation - why is there a universe at all?

6.6.2 Positive Responses

Cosmology provides a picture of a finite (created) universe having a beginning
and an end. This would seem to be much more in keeping with a biblical doctrine
of Creation. It is valid to ask, ‘Are scientists now coming to the same view as the
theologians?’ Consider the widely quoted statement from Jastow(1978, God and
the Astronomers. p 116),
“At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the
curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his
faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has
scaled the mountains of ignorance: he is about to conquer the highest

2
In his recent book 'God Actually', Roy Williams makes the claim that prior to 1959, Hoyle
had been an agnostic, and that he 'converted' to Design based on the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the
nucleosynthesis process that produces carbon within stars. The "Hoyle History" website
(http://hoylehistory.com/famous-hoyles/fred-hoyle/) provides a slightly different history: it claims
that Hoyle was reportedly an atheist for most of his early life, but changed to agnosticism based
upon the implications of the aforementioned apparently 'finely-tuned' processes.
Hoyle's own words seem to indicate that his beliefs were, at least, put under some tension by the
implications of his work: "I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail
to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard
to the consequences they produce in stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have
become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not, then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of
accidents." And again; "Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have
designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom
through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A
common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with
physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking
about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put
this conclusion almost beyond question."
The authors are indebted to James Garth for drawing their attention to this fuller insight into
Hoyle’s views.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-16

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

peak: as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of

theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Pope Pius XII declared in 1951 that the big bang was compatible with the
Christian Doctrine of Creation.
“Everything seems to indicate that the universe has in finite times a
mighty beginning.” He went on to claim that unprejudiced scientific
thinking indicated that the universe “is a work of creative omnipotence,
whose power, set in motion by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the
universe”
Both of these statements need to be critiqued. It is inappropriate to tie theology
to a particular scientific theory or to imply that the “originating” God of the big
bang is the God of creation ex nihilo. God as Creator is just as consistent with the
eternal steady state concept.
To make things even more complicated and challenging, Hawking has suggested
a non-beginning big bang scenario (Hawking, 1988, A Brief History of Time, Guild
Publishing, London, pp127,128)
In 1981 I attended a conference on cosmology in the Vatican. At the end
of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the Pope
(John Paul II). He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the
universe after the big bang, but we should not enquire into the big bang
itself, because that was the moment of creation and therefore the work of
God. I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had
just given at the conference - the possibility that space time was finite ,
but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment
of creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo……..
Hawking (1988), pp, 156,157, states,
So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a
creator. But if the universe is really completely self contained, having no
boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would
simply be. What place then for a creator?

6.6.3 Anthropic Principle

The development of conscious beings able to speculate about origins is the result
of a very finely tuned universe. The anthropic principle is really about the fine
tuning of the universe, the essential fitness of the world as we know it and have
learned about it. It does matter that the electromagnetic force and the
gravitational force are inverse square laws and depend on one over the square of
the distance between the charges or masses (1/d2). If, however, the
electromagnetic and gravitational laws depended on 1/d1.999999 or 1/d2.000001, say,
the earth would be too hot or too cold to sustain life, respectively. It might be
possible to construct a world that could exist, but it is unlikely to be able to
sustain any life forms at all as we recognise them. Worthing (1996, p. 46) gives a
most adequate account of both the Weak and Strong forms of the Anthropic
Principle.
Weak Anthropic Principle
This is simply a statement of fact based on a retrospective look at the history of
the universe. With reference to a book by Barrow and Tipler, he notes for
example that the universe must be that age that it is to allow sufficient time for
evolution of beings like us to ask the question concerning its age.
Strong Anthropic Principle

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-17

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

Whilst there are several different versions of the Strong Anthropic Principle, we
note that they all to some degree note the fitness of the laws of physics for the
existence of the universe as we find it in the structure and behaviour of stars and
galaxies, for example. The Strong Anthropic Principle has also been used as an
argument for design, for a new Natural Theology and the idea of multiple
universes. Some of this is rather speculative and the technical details beyond the
scope of this course.

6.6.4 Hawking and Creation?

No beginning!
The problem of the first few instants where the laws we know and understand
break down. Clearly the initial singularity poses a problem for atheists but in our
view, not for Christians. It is not so much that the laws of physics break down,
we don’t know what laws operated up to the Planck time.

6.6.5 Quantum Gravity

Forces between electric charges are thought to be communicated at the speed of
light by photons. To account for the gravitation force in the same way, gravitons
travelling at the speed of light have been postulated. Getting the theory in place
has not been possible. So a theory of quantum gravity does not yet exist.

6.6.6 Seeking a Theory of Everything

Attempts to combine the laws relating to Gravity, Electromagnetism and both
Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces into a TOE or Theory of Everything has been
referred to elsewhere.

6.6.7 Hartle/Hawking Speculation, No Boundary models - No singularity

While cosmologists such as Hawking recognise the evidence pointing towards the
Big Bang which implies a definite beginning to the universe at a singularity in
both space and time, they also want a way out. In more speculative frame of
mind, Hartle and Hawking have proposed a model in which there would be no
boundary to the universe and no sharply defined singularity. The details get
rather complicated and are beyond the scope of this chapter. A discussion of
these issues are given by Worthing (1996, p 53) in which he points out that the
God Hawking gets rid of is the God of the Gaps that we have rejected earlier
anyway. We may say that scientific explanations do not, of themselves, answer
the ‘why’ questions about why we are here in the first place.

6.6.8 Who is the Scientists ‘God’?

There are several concepts used both to dismiss or to affirm the God of the
Gaps. That is, God is the explanation for what we don't know. Suppose we were
able to know everything that could be known. Then what? Would God be reduced
to nothing? The God of the Gaps is not the God of Old and New Testaments. The
issue can be settled by realising that
`God does not equal our ignorance!'
To acknowledge mystery regarding the nature and character of God is necessary,
but God does not equal Mystery either.
A remark by the late Charles Coulson (1955) has been quoted often e.g. by
Polkinghorne (1986, p 60),
“when we come to the scientifically unknown, our correct policy is not to
rejoice because we have found God; it is to become better scientists”.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-18

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

Platonist force
Many scientists conceive God as an impersonal force, the mind of the universe,
the source of the laws of physics or even as the laws themselves as something
outside nature. It was in this sense that Einstein could say that “god does not
play dice” or that Hawking could talk about finding the mind of god. His Brief
history of time concludes with this pregnant thought.
However if we discover a complete theory it should be understandable in
broad principle by everyone, not just the scientists. Then we shall all,
philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people be able to take part in the
discussion of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to
that it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason, for then we would
know the mind of God.
Hawking, Brief history of time 1988, p. 193

6.6.9 Is creation ‘ex nihilo’ consistent with modern cosmology?

Modern cosmology starts with the so-called Big Bang at what physicists call a
singularity in space and time which represents the beginning of space and time—
a creation ex nihilo. The implication scientifically is that space and time were
created at the singularity about 13.7 billion years ago. The physics of the very
earliest times are not known however, but it is certainly true to say that science
and theology find no contradictions. Even if the no boundary speculation of
Hawking is true, as discussed above, the theology of creation is concerned with
why there is something rather than nothing. Theology and science concur, but are
asking different questions.

6.7 IMPLICATIONS FOR GOD’S CONTINUING ACTIVITY—THE

GOD OF SPECIAL PROVIDENCE

6.7.1 How does God interact with the world?

We have explained that the scientific evidence supports a dynamic evolving
universe. Stars continue to be born and to die and the processes by which that
happens are well understood. The universe is not static or fixed! It arises from an
interplay of chance and necessity, of being and becoming. Furthermore it is
understood that the universe appears to be an open system. It is still becoming,
‘going on creating itself’ (See Polkinghorne 1994, p.43).

6.7.2 The problem of natural evil

The creation as we see it with its “natural” imperfections expressed by such
things as earthquakes and the biological consequences of natural selection might
be seen as a dynamic creation “becoming” (not being) as it were— the best of all
possible worlds. We perhaps should look at creation (by God) as being on the
way, dynamic not static, creation as continuing to a climax, an eschaton, not
simply being. After all for the Christian, God’s activity in creation culminates in
the hope of a new creation. We also perhaps need to see natural evil as an
expression of the world being what it is. After all the tectonic plates govern the
continuing formation of the world as well as they do the eruption of volcanoes or
the power of earthquakes. The biological growth processes produce normal
development as well as cancer development and the process of natural selection
produces the emergence of life capable of aesthetic, moral and religious aspects
as well as of nature ‘red in tooth and claw’. God has created a world that is free
to be itself, but also one where the ultimate result emerges out of an interplay of
chance and necessity. These perspectives provide a wider horizon from which to
view creation. We can thus be assured that God is both good and in control, but

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-19

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

our perspective may need to be broadened and our time frame lengthened.
Having said all this however it remains difficult to come up with a full and
satisfactory rational explanation of the problem of evil. In many respects the
ultimate answer to the problem of evil is not philosophical but experiential. In a
world in which suffering exists, the clear Christian message is that God shares
that pain.

6.7.3 Process theology

Process theology sees the World as part of God and God as process - a limited
God, a God who develops along with the universe. Such ideas deny the
transcendence of God in bending to a “scientific immanence”.

6.8 IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIAN HOPE – ESCHATOLOGY

6.8.1 Scientific speculation — Persistence of a non-personal immortality

Tipler and Freeman Dyson address these aspects, but more from the standpoint
of science fiction, than science. It is questionable whether there is an interface
here in the science theology debate which can be followed at this point.

6.8.2 Is Christian eschatology limited to part of the universe?

The Biblical eschatology of Christian hope, encapsulated in the doctrine of bodily
resurrection and a new heavens and earth raise appreciable questions for the
science faith debate and are being explored by Christian scholars such as Robert
Russell. It might be questioned whether in such areas we are operating outside of
science in a new creation or that Christian eschatology is limited to a part of the
universe. No easy answers can be given.

6.9 CREATION AND THE BIBLICAL RECORD

The interpretation of the creation accounts has always been varied and biblical
interpretation should not be equated with biblical inspiration. Scientific developments
may well be an important tool in such interpretation. It is outside the scope of this
chapter to consider this matter in any detail, but just to refer to some basic facts.

6.9.1 Historically —many approaches - not just literal/allegorical

Platonist approach
Was typical of many of the Patristics, Augustine, Origen, Basil etc.
Literal – Aristotelian
In the 17th century, Ussher’s chronology, following on the literalism of the
Reformation, gave rise to a dating of creation (4004 BC) that carried its authority
into the margins of many Bibles. Geological studies in the 18th century on the age
of the earth however dispensed with such a chronology and left literal and semi-
literal interpretations of Genesis to the so called Scriptural geologists (see
Chapter 1).
Scriptural geologists
Three scenarios were put forward to maintain a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Not all presupposed a young earth. They all attempted to fit the Bible to science
by proposing a series of ages corresponding to days, a gap between Gen 1:1 and
1:2, or the proposition that creation including humanity was formed with the
appearance of age (Gosse). All of these interpretations are still presented, but are
bound to come into conflict with a God who is neither magician, charlatan nor
mechanic, but Creator.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-20

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

6.9.2 Interpretative principles

Again these can only be referred to in outline. One must recognise that the
Genesis accounts are expressed in the cosmology of the Ancient Near East (ANE).
Such cosmology bears little resemblance to modern science.
Expressed in the literary form of the ANE
The poetic parallelism etc., the “mythic,” saga, story are apparent.
Affected by the context of the ANE creation myths — Enuma Elish legends
etc.
It is important to discern the truths in such accounts. Nearer home, aboriginal
stories e.g. may also be seen to point to Christ and in Christ to see their
fulfillment. Aboriginal people often have no problem with the Genesis story as
they see it as being like their own stories. It would not occur to them that stories
that relate to long periods of time would have to be interpreted literally.

6.9.3 Literary framework

Structure of the seven days — see Thompson (2007).

6.9.4 Literary structure of Gen 1

Introduction 1:1-2, The whole universe
Day I Act 1 Light
Day IV Act 5 Light bearers (1:3-5) (1:14-19)
Day II Act 2 Firmament dividing
Day V Act 6 Birds and sea waters, above and below creatures (1:6-8) (1:20-23)
Day III Act 3 Waters and land
Day VI Act 7 Land animals, separated reptiles (1:9-10) (1:24-25)
Act 4 Vegetation
Act 8 Man (1:11-13) (1:26-31)
Day VII
Conclusion: 2:1-4a God Ceases his creative activity

6.10 CONCLUSIONS

6.10.1 Impact of physics on 21st century cosmology

The impact of 20th century physics on how we think about the world has been of
immense magnitude. We have seen the necessary dismantling of our common
sense ideas of space and time and the impact of non-deterministic quantum
mechanics. The discoveries in atomic, nuclear and particle physics on the one
hand and astronomy and cosmology on the other, have changed forever our view
of the universe. It is an ever expanding and changing entity. Stars continue to be
born and to die. We are able to penetrate even further and further to the outer
limits of our universe and that means probing even further and further back in
time. We should welcome the new knowledge, not uncritically, but with
discernment.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-21

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

6.10.2 Scientific and theological concepts in consonance

We need to find consonance between what we learn from physics and what we
experience as Christians. Put another way, it would be strange indeed if the
stories from nature and theology were out of step.

6.10.3 Exegetical principles— genre, culture, context are important

We must discern the substance of the message— not confuse it with the form.

6.10.4 Creation is important for cosmology

It provides a theological and metaphysical basis for the scientific understanding of
the universe. A full view of the world is incomplete without this.

6.10.5 Cosmology is important for creation

It gives a new dimension of awe and wonder to the creator, Ps 19:1, “When I see
the world the work of thy hands” etc. The experience of understanding a tiny part
of our world is as moving as any religious experience in prayer or worship. It is
our responsibility to use our intellect to take advantage of all kinds of knowledge
and to use them to the glory of God.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-22

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 6 2009

6.11 REFERENCES

Atkinson, D, 1990, The Message of Genesis 1-11, BST Commentaries, IVP, Leicester.
Coulson, CA, 1955, Science and religion: a changing relationship, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Davies, P, 1992, The Mind of God, Penquin, London.
Ferguson, K, 1994, The Fire in the Equations, Bantam, London.
Gribbin, J, 1987, In Search of the Big Bang, Corgi, UK.
Hawking, S, 1988, A Brief History of Time, Bantam, London.
Kaufmann, WJ, Comins, NF, 1996, Discovering the Universe, 4th Edn, Freeman.
Polkinghorne, JC, 1986, One World, SPCK, London.
Polkinghorne, JC, 1988, Science and Creation, SPCK, London.
Polkinghorne, JC, 1989, Science and Providence, SPCK, London.
Polkinghorne, JC, 1994, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, Triangle, London.
Sherlock, C, Creation, Creationism and Scripture, Interchange 35, p.17-32
Thompson JA, 2007, Gen 1-3 , Science?, History? Theology?, Acorn/ISCAST, Melbourne
(May be ordered on-line at www.iscast.org; an on-line version (1996) appears as an
article in Christian Perspectives on Science and Technology, the ISCAST On-Line Journal
at www.iscast.org).
Van den Beukel, A, 1991, More Things in Heaven and Earth, SCM Press, London
(translation from Dutch).
Weinberg, S, 1977, The First Three Minutes, Deutsch, London.
Wenham, GW, 1991, Genesis 1-15, Word Bible Commentary, Word, UK.
Wilkinson D, 1997, God, the Big Bang and Stephen Hawking, Monarch, Tunbridge Wells.
Worthing, MW, 1996, God, Creation and Contemporary Physics, Fortress, Minneapolis.

Authors: John R Pilbrow & Allan J Day 6-23

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

Chapter 7 EVOLUTION AND CREATION

Allan J Day

Author: Allan J Day 7-1

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

CONTENTS – CHAPTER 7

Chapter 7 EVOLUTION AND CREATION....................................................... 7-1

7.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................. 7-3
7.2 INTERPRETING THE SCIENTIFIC DATA ........................... 7-3
7.2.1 Science seeks truth ............................................................................. 7-3
7.2.2 Scientific truth is derived by scientific method........................... 7-3
7.2.3 Science as input to interpretation................................................... 7-3
7.2.4 Science and scientism......................................................................... 7-4
7.3 INTERPRETING THEOLOGICAL/BIBLICAL DATA ............. 7-4
7.3.1 Distinguish scientific and theological questions ......................... 7-4
7.3.2 Interpretation is not inspiration....................................................... 7-4
7.3.3 Science as an aid to interpretation................................................. 7-4
7.4 EVOLUTION— SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS ............................... 7-4
7.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................ 7-4
7.4.2 History...................................................................................................... 7-5
7.4.3 Neo-Darwinism—modern Darwinism ............................................. 7-7
7.4.4 Human evolution .................................................................................. 7-8
7.4.5 Dating the past ..................................................................................... 7-9
7.4.6 Problems for evolution........................................................................ 7-9
7.5 EVOLUTION — THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS ........................ 7-10
7.5.1 Theological issues .............................................................................. 7-10
7.5.2 Creation ................................................................................................. 7-11
7.5.3 Evolution by natural selection ........................................................ 7-11
7.5.4 Evolutionism......................................................................................... 7-12
7.5.5 Creationism .......................................................................................... 7-12
7.6 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION ISSUES ............................ 7-12
7.6.1 General principles............................................................................... 7-12
7.6.2 Gen 1:1– 2:4a: Creation by the word of God........................... 7-13
7.7 REFERENCES................................................................. 7-14

Author: Allan J Day 7-2

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

7.1 INTRODUCTION
No area of science touches more directly on the theological/biblical concepts of Creation,
Humanity and the Fall than that of Evolution and Creation. Problems arise however with
interpretations of both the scientific and the biblical data. Many consider that Evolution
and Creation are alternatives and therefore that one must make a choice between
these two explanations of the natural world. This difficulty has dogged the debate since
Darwin presented his explanation of the multiplicity and development of species in the
19thC.— and even before. The issue has therefore become polarised and often the
subject of bitter controversy. Huxley in the 19thC. and his modern counterpart Richard
Dawkins in the late 20thC. have contributed to this polarisation as have those Christians
who espouse a view of creation that envisages God acting in a staccato fashion to create
individual species including man by acts of special creation.
A consideration of the history of Darwinism and of its context in 19thC England has
indicated the complexity of the debate between evolution and creation. Darwin himself
struggled with the issue of natural selection as either a substitute for God or as an
explanation of God’s activity. Darwinism was also perceived by his contemporaries as
either a basis for atheistic naturalism or as an example of the way God acts in creation.
Historical aspects are considered in Chapter 3: Darwin and the Aftermath.
History also served to illustrate the problem of linking a particular interpretation of
Scripture, or a particular approach to theology, to an outdated understanding of science.
The solution to this dilemma is to understand evolution by natural selection as a
proposed mechanism, a means by which God brings about the rich variety of the
biological world and to reject as nonscientific any conclusion that evolution is an
agent of creation. The latter may be a valid proposition to put but it is a metaphysical
proposition not a scientific one and it is best to distinguish such a view with respect to
evolution as “evolutionism”. If one clearly recognises this distinction then it will be
appreciated that there is no intrinsic conflict between evolution and creation. Evolution
needs to be judged on scientific grounds and creation on theological and
biblical grounds.
We need to ask three questions therefore.
1. How do we interpret the scientific data?
2. How do we interpret the theological and biblical picture?
3. Are these pictures in conflict or are they to be seen as complementary?

7.2 INTERPRETING THE SCIENTIFIC DATA

7.2.1 Science seeks truth

If we are seeking truth we must examine the scientific data seriously and with
integrity. We cannot dismiss it on trivial grounds or on the basis of
presuppositions of what theology or the bible are saying.

7.2.2 Scientific truth is derived by scientific method

It must be interpreted on scientific grounds— by the scientific method.

7.2.3 Science as input to interpretation

We must also consider the implications of the scientific data in interpreting or
reinterpreting theological and biblical matters.

Author: Allan J Day 7-3

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

7.2.4 Science and scientism

On the other hand, we must not allow the scientific conclusions to become
philosophical conclusions, or evolution to become evolutionism or naturalism. This
is to go beyond the scientific bounds to scientism— Cf. Dawkins.

7.3 INTERPRETING THEOLOGICAL/BIBLICAL DATA

7.3.1 Distinguish scientific and theological questions

In considering the issue of evolution and creation we need to distinguish the
scientific from the theological questions. Evolution and creation are not
alternatives, but represent respectively a secondary cause or mechanism and a
primary cause. The former is outside the bounds of theology. “Biological man”
and the “Image of God” are not alternatives, but represent two viewpoints of the
same humanity. The former is outside the bounds of theology.

7.3.2 Interpretation is not inspiration

There have been a variety in interpretations, both throughout history and at
present, as Christians and others have struggled to understand the text of the
creation accounts. Theistic evolution, progressive creationism, special creation or
literalism have all been understood by their proponents to best interpret what the
text is describing. It is important therefore not to equate a particular
interpretation with orthodoxy.

7.3.3 Science as an aid to interpretation

It may be necessary to reconsider a particular interpretation in the light of extra
biblical information including emerging scientific data. This is well accepted with
regard to language and cultural input and needs to be extended to input from
science, if that is relevant.

7.4 EVOLUTION— SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS

7.4.1 Introduction
Issues
There are a number of very evident facts about the biological world that are well
explained by evolution, by postulating a progressive transmutation of species
from lower animals to higher animals including humans. Evolution therefore has
good credentials as a scientific theory. This fact can be appreciated by most of
the lay observers.
Variety of Species
There is an enormous variety of biological species, in the contemporary scene
some 30 million separate species can be recognised. To this must be added the
some 100 times this number which have become extinct over geological time.
This is attested to by the fossil record. Thus we have a total number of different
species over the history of biology of some 3 billion in all.
Relationship of species
There is a close anatomical, physiological and genetic relationship between
species with a commonality in basic structure, in basic functions and in genetic
constitution amongst living things. A continuous series can be constructed from
the most simple plants and animals to the most complex. Thus there is evidence
for a continuum rather than for a series of discrete species. The closer the species

Author: Allan J Day 7-4

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

are in the series the closer the similarity in their anatomical structures, their
physiological functions and their genetic makeup.
Origin of Species
From these facts can be suggested that the origin of different species occurs, not
by the individual creation of each of the three billion varieties, but by one species
gradually transmuting into another to form a continuous series. Thus the
biological answer to variation and speciation is evolution. It has become a
basic principle of biology—one that unifies the whole of biology and undergirds
modern biology.
Definitions
Evolution is the gradual unfolding of new varieties of life from previous
forms over long periods of time. It was suggested as a possibility long
before Darwin. The difficulty was that, before Darwin, a satisfactory and
experimentally verifiable mechanism could not be agreed. Some
mechanisms were suggested but they had little evidence to support them.
See below.
Proposed Mechanism is by natural selection, acting from generation to
generation, so that changes induced by mutation, are selected and passed
on selectively from one generation to the next resulting in a change in
allele frequency (or the genetic makeup) in successive populations.
Evolution thus:
Denies a static unchanging world;
Denies a separate origin for each species; and,
Considers man to be part of the biological world;
but it does not deny the theological considerations:
Creation or a Creator;
Man made in the image of God;
the nature and origin of sin.

7.4.2 History
Background
The development of information from geology and paleontology in the 18thC
formed an important background for the emergence of evolution. This information
related both to the fossil record and the age of the earth. The identification of
fossils as evidence of previous life forms and their ordering in a fossil time
sequence suggested some development over time. Initially no absolute time scale
was known although geology progressively increased the time frame. Absolute
timing of fossil artifacts, however had to await radioactive dating in the 1940’s to
provide firm evidence of the enormous time span involved.
With the advance of geology and the abandonment of catastrophism as an
explanation of both the geological findings and the fossil record, a further
foundation was laid for a consideration of evolution in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries. This advance in geology culminated in the development of
uniformitarian geology by Lyell in the early 19thC. Darwin had Lyell’s very recently
published Principles of Geology with him on the Beagle journey. Before the 18thC
the age of the earth and the date of creation was established from biblical data
notably by the findings of Archbishop Ussher. Thus both the age of the earth and
the date of creation was considered to be 4004 BC, and this date appeared
(giving it credence) in the margin of many bibles. By the end of the 19th century,

Author: Allan J Day 7-5

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

long time frames (although not to the extent now recognised) were universally
accepted and creation over a long period was unquestioned.
Pre Darwinian evolution
As indicated above evolution was not suggested first by Darwin. His grandfather,
the notable sceptic, Erasmus Darwin was talking about the possibility of
mutability of species in the 18thC. Lamarck, the French biologist had a strong
following for his concept of evolution. He suggested that environmentally
determined changes were passed on to succeeding generations and thus
favourable traits were perpetuated.
Darwin
Darwin was a careful observer and accumulated a mass of data in support of his
theory of evolution by natural selection. His conclusions were influenced by the
controversial views of Malthus and his theory of a struggle for human survival in
Britain’s 19thC. growing industrial society, with the pressures of limited resources
of food and the problems of famine and disease. Population numbers were kept
relatively constant as a result of these pressures. Darwin saw the analogy with
nature as a whole and the explanation of his observations of nature.
Facts and interpretation
Fecundity, variation, selection and survival were the key elements in Darwin’s
proposal. The first two represented observed facts, the last two represented
suggested interpretations of the facts to explain the origin of species.
All species had enormous fecundity. The potential for population growth was
therefore considerable. Thus without natural checks numbers would increase very
rapidly. Population numbers however remained relatively constant.
Therefore there was a struggle for survival
All populations showed considerable variation.
Therefore advantageous variations are selected by natural selection
sometimes called “survival of the fittest”. Darwin envisaged this process
progressing to produce new species by transmutation of species
Evidence for Darwinism
Darwin’s genius was his production of overwhelming evidence to support his
theory. This came from three main sources.
Fossil records over a long time span.
Natural sequence of fossils.
Development of variation (speciation) in isolated populations. e.g.
Galapagos islands.
Problems
Natural selection was not without its problems however. These have now been
essentially dealt with in the contemporary theory of Neo-Darwinism.
Darwin however had no explanation for the basis of variation. This is now known
to be the result of mutation.
Darwin also had no explanation for the fixity of variation in new generations.
Again this has been clarified by the Mendelian mechanism of genetic inheritance.
Objections
It needs to be said that Darwin recognised the objections to his theory better
than most and discussed them fully in the “Origin”. Again most of these have

Author: Allan J Day 7-6

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

been dealt with by later observations but they still emerge as potential
objections. There are three main groups:-
• The paucity of missing links, the gaps in the fossil record.
• The difficulty presented by complex organs such as the eye or the wing.
• The adequacy of the time span—is it enough?
Regarding gaps in the fossil record, see Conway Morris (2006). Regarding the
time needed for evolutionary development, see Neild (2004).
Response
The response to Darwinism was mixed. Gradually however it was accepted by
biologists although some remained doubtful until relatively late in the 19th
century. See also chapter 2.
The Christian response was varied and still is. Gray, Wright and Warfield were
evangelical and supportive. Huxley used it to promote a conflict position and his
own agenda for scientific hegemony in 19thC England, where the universities were
controlled by the ecclesiastical establishment.

7.4.3 !!!Neo-Darwinism—modern Darwinism

Modern evolutionary theory distils the result of studies in modern genetics,
population genetics etc. into the widely accepted theory of Neo-Darwinism. This
has been contributed to by the following disciplines
Mendelian genetics
This provided a basis for variation by mutation. It also provided a basis for
inheritance of variations by means of undiluted Mendelian characteristics.
Population genetics — Fisher
Provided a basis whereby small differences in population variation have been
shown to be able to drive the process of natural selection at a remarkably rapid
pace. It resolved the mutation vs. gradualism debate.
Genetic chemistry
Molecular biology techniques revealed the similarity and gradation at the chemical
(DNA) level between species. Methods of inheritance by means of DNA etc. are
identical from bacteria to humans. DNA sequencing between species reveals
species relationships, common ancestors. Thus minor differences in DNA serve as
a “molecular clock” to determine the gap between species. Humans and chimps
for example have 98% of their DNA in common.
Experimental techniques - demonstration of microevolution
Over quite short time spans it can be demonstrated experimentally that the
selection of variants can occur in a variety of populations. Drosophila,
black/white moths and Sickle Cell Anemia in humans are examples.
To reiterate, the evidence for modern Darwinism comes from:-
• Fossil sequences
• Population genetics
• Microevolution
• Genetic technology
While there are still debates about the detailed mechanism, the general theory of
evolution is considered by the scientific community to be well established.

Author: Allan J Day 7-7

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

7.4.4 Human evolution

The evidence for human evolution comes from three sources:-
• Paleo-anthropology— fossil man—molecular biology.
• Genetic data.
• Cultural considerations—tools, art, language.
Fossil evidence, skeletal and cultural
There are three groups of fossils distinguished, representing pre-human, early
human and modern human fossils. Many recent discoveries have been made
particularly in East Africa.
Prehuman australopithecines—ape men
These appear in South and East Africa around five million years ago. This group is
characterised by bipedalism, a small cranial cavity and a protruding jaw similar to
apes but with shorter canine teeth. They are not considered a direct ancestor of
man, but to come from a common stock
Early man - homo habilis, homo erectus
These appear in Africa two to three million years ago and spread to Asia (Java
man, Peking man) between one million and 500,000 years ago.
This group is characterised by an enlargement of the cranial cavity (2/3 of the
size in modern man) and the development of the first “made” tools.
Oldowan tools appear at 2 million years ago, while more advanced Acheulean
tools at 1.5 million years ago and fire at 700,000 years ago.
Modern man— homo sapiens
These appear first in Africa at 200,000 years ago and spread to West Asia
(100.000), Australia (50,000), Europe (40,000), North America (15,000). They
are characterised by a further increase in brain size and the development of
sophisticated tools, and of art and religion (30,000). There are many unanswered
questions and matters of dispute. The evidence however suggests an origin of
modern man in Africa and a spread to other areas, descendants of early man (H.
erectus) having become extinct. This is the so called Noah’s Ark theory or the
“African Eve” theory. This is supported by the genetic evidence.
Genetic data
This information is particularly important and can be considered under three
headings.
Comparison of DNA with related species
Relationships and the closeness of this relationship can be deduced by
such studies.
Backward projection from variants in populations from different areas
Mitochondrial DNA data suggest a common all female line ancestor to
modern humans in Africa some 150,000 years ago. This is the “African
Eve” or “Mitochondrial Eve” theory1.

1
See ‘The Daughters of Eve’ and ‘The Curse of Adam’ by Prof Brian Sykes, Oxford
University. The first relates to mitochondrial DNA passed from mother to daughter; the
latter to the Y chromosome passed from father to son. These are markers for tracing back
the origin of most European women to seven ‘mothers’.

Author: Allan J Day 7-8

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

Examinations of population variants today

Sickle Cell Anemia, which is caused by a difference of one amino acid in
the !-haemoglobin chain, can be shown to be selected positively in
malarial areas where this variant presents survival value but deselected in
other areas where sickling is a disadvantage.
Cultural data
Cultural anthropology reveals characteristics such as language, religion,
conceptual thinking in early human communities at 30,000 years.
One might well ask, what does it mean then to be human?

7.4.5 Dating the past

Many of these studies depend on the ability to date the past by a variety of
techniques. Pre 20th century dating was imprecise, but it needs to be said that
these techniques are now reliable and can be confirmed by a number of
overlapping methods.
Mid 20th century—radioactive dating procedures
Uranium-lead dating
U238, U235 decay to lead isotopes Useful for long periods to 4.5 billion
years
Potassium 42 —argon dating
Useful for shorter periods Determines time from lava cooling
Radio carbon dating
Useful for periods 50,000 years or less.
Thermoluminescence
Periods to 100,000 years, similar to Radio Carbon dating.

7.4.6 Problems for evolution

These may be considered under two headings.
Scientific
Evolution is well established and the major issues are well recognised and taken
into account by the scientific community. They are still essentially as recognised
by Darwin but better addressed.
Gaps—missing links
There is still the unevenness of the fossil record— the presence of gaps
and the absence of large numbers of intermediate forms. However there is
a continual and progressive filling in of the fossil record as time proceeds.
There is also reason to consider that rapid progress through intermediate
forms would occur before the emergence of a relatively large successful
population, so that fewer intermediate forms might be expected. Gould
suggests a further process to account for speciation, called punctuated
equilibria.
Complex organs such as the eye.
Small and intermediate changes are themselves adaptive and selective.
There is not the need to envisage a full organ as being necessary for
selection to be generative of changes. (See Dawkins, Out of Eden 1995,
and Neild, 2004).

Author: Allan J Day 7-9

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

Time available is not sufficient

The monkey random typist argument. However there is not a completely
random process, but rather directed selection, progressively moving
towards the goal, (see Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986).
Dating problems
These can be corrected and checked against alternative methods. The use
of more than one method is normal practice in any event.
Pseudo-scientific
Scientific objections are often raised without understanding the scientific method
or the way the scientific community operates. These follow a particular pattern
suggesting that:
evolution is only a “theory”, or,
evolution is non-falsifiable, or that
some of the data does not fit or is disputed.
Some of these objections consist of the resurrection of old objections or
those fully considered or discredited, or of scientific concepts that are
bizarre or inadequately substantiated science. These include disputes about
dating, or of fossil explanations by catastrophism.
Many of these objections verge on the fraudulent, failing to take into account the
whole picture or, at the very least, show a failure to understand the way in which
science works.

7.5 EVOLUTION — THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS

7.5.1 Theological issues

Introductory considerations
Two questions might be posed.
1. Does evolution exclude creation by God?
2. Is evolution incompatible with a belief in God as Creator?
Two reasons are given in support of answering yes to these questions.
Evolution is seen as presenting an alternative explanation to creation by
God.
Therefore it is concluded that evolution and creation are alternatives
incompatible with each other and one or other must consequentially be
rejected. The secular humanist would accept that they are incompatible
and accept evolution as the chosen alternative. The “creation scientist”
would agree that they are incompatible but consider that evolution is
unacceptable
Natural selection contradicts the nature of God through “predation and
pain”
In a sense this is a much bigger issue— the understanding of why the
world is the way it is.
However, let us examine the issue further and look for some
definitions. What is creation? What is evolution?

Author: Allan J Day 7-10

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

7.5.2 Creation
There are three aspects which must be included in any understanding of the
biblical doctrine of creation. They relate to the nature of the Creator, of the
creation of humanity and of the nature of humanity as “fallen”.
Creator
Asserts that all things, including time, owe their existence to God. The
universe exists by the will of God. God’s creative activity is continual and
so includes not only beginnings but also his continued providence and
sustenance.
However, any theological consideration of creation does not address
certain aspects of origins. It does not indicate how God created.
• Does not imply instantaneous creation.
• Does not preclude a scientific explanation.
• Does not deny freedom and the potentiality for evil in creation.
“Best of all possible worlds”.
• Does not indicate creation in time but of time.
Humanity
The essential picture is of humanity made in the image of God and capable
of relationship with God. However, while it affirms that humanity is more
than just another animal it does not deny that man is part of the animal
world— biological man. Nor does it imply instantaneous creation of man. It
does however raise some issues about the relationship of emergent
properties in “biological man” in relation to “theological man”.
The Fall
Man is by nature sinful and in need of redemption.
However, it does raise some issues about the relationship of the origin,
nature and transmission of a sinful nature in relation to the emergent
“biological man”.

7.5.3 Evolution by natural selection

This term must be restricted to the scientific explanation for the origin and nature
of species including man. It includes the process (evolution) and the mechanism
(natural selection). Evolution is not a force, but a mechanism, a description, to
explain the “way things are”, in biology.
Therefore, its truth or otherwise is determined by scientific investigation on the
basis of the evidence, i.e. by “good science”. It does not exclude God as a
primary cause and does not disprove God as the creator. As a scientific
mechanism it does however (as does any scientific theory) potentially explain the
way God acts in nature.
It therefore presents a ”scientific challenge”.
The alternatives are therefore not
Evolution or creation, but rather
Evolution or some other plausible scientific explanation determined by the
scientific method.
No other plausible scientific explanation so adequately explains
the data.

Author: Allan J Day 7-11

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

7.5.4 Evolutionism
Evolutionism equates evolution with a force, an agent of creation— naturalism
and blind chance are considered as agents of creation rather than God. It
excludes God, by definition from the equation. Evolutionism does provide an
alternative to God as creator. However it is a metaphysical concept, not a
scientific one.
Evolutionism is thus an extension from evolution, but has no legitimate scientific
basis. It does not logically follow from an acceptance of evolution as a scientific
explanation, but goes beyond the domain of science.
It is espoused as a philosophy by scientific rationalists and rightly opposed by
Christian believers.

7.5.5 Creationism
Derived from a literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis (young
earth, flood geology interpretation). However it must be considered a belief
system rather than science. Rather it is “folk science”, seeking to support a
particular scriptural interpretation. Creation in creationism is equated with
“instantaneous creation” in six literal days. Because it excludes all other
interpretations of origins it becomes incompatible with “evolution”. The issue
therefore is that of hermeneutics— of biblical interpretation.
How do we then interpret the Genesis creation accounts?

7.6 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION ISSUES

7.6.1 General principles

In coming to biblical passages dealing with origins there are some important
guidelines which are consistent with a high view of biblical authority and
inspiration.
Take Scriptural authority seriously.
As inspired by God, the revelation of God, but not forgetting that it is expressed
through human vehicles.
Consider genre.
Is it literary or literal, narrative or poetic, historical or allegorical?
All of these genres are present in the biblical record and a literal interpretation is
not necessarily the appropriate one, particularly if there are conflicts with truth
from other sources such as science.
Consider the context, world view of the hearers.
What was the scientific world view in the ANE in the first and second millenium
BC? Cosmology was understood in terms of a three-decker universe, with no
concept of modern cosmology.
The important question is what did the text convey to the hearers?
Consider the purpose of Scripture.
The primary purpose of Scripture is as a guide to faith and conduct, not of
science.
Problems have arisen from such a misconception. Many have espoused a biblicist
interpretation, where the Bible determines science, while others have espoused a
concordist interpretation, where science determines the biblical interpretation.
Neither is an adequate approach to Scripture.

Author: Allan J Day 7-12

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

History is illustrative of these issues and also reminds us that there have been
many interpretations of Genesis both throughout history as at present.
Use extra-biblical evidence to clarify interpretation.
It is important to consider seriously the implications of contemporary science.
Scientific truth and biblical truth will not be in conflict. This approach has good
historical precedent.

7.6.2 Gen 1:1– 2:4a: Creation by the word of God

Several questions need addressing.
Literal or literary?
Numbers, structure, repetition, sequence suggest a literary interpretation rather
than a literal one.
ANE background: the ANE world view
Enuma elish and other creation myths suggest a presentation of Gen. 1 as
a hymn of praise extolling the nature of Israel’s God, emphasizing a
monotheistic understanding.
Interpretation
The basic facts emerge from the text of God as creator—separate,
independent. There is a polemic against polytheism, monism, dualism.
Creation is separate, dependent and good.
Humanity is special, made in the image of God, having dominion over
creation and in relationship to God.
The sabbath is special conveying a new relationship.
It is a polemic against contemporary ANE world views.
Concerned with who God is and who we are, not the how of creation.
Gen 2–3: Adam and the fall
The interpretation of this narrative is a major issue for the evolution/creation
debate, but it is not often faced up to. We might well ask how do we interpret it?
Literary or literal?
Symbols abound— serpent, tree of life, rib, dust. Anthropomorphism.
Structure is important— Gen 2, Gen 3, Eden and the fall—narrative.
History or myth, saga
Myth and its meaning.
Perspective and message.
Should we interact with the scientific (anthropological) data?
Who was Adam? (See Alexander, 2008.)
Was Adam a historic person or a generic term?
Was the creation of the Imagio Dei gradual or instantaneous?
Was the “Fall” gradual or instantaneous?
These are important questions for discussion.

Author: Allan J Day 7-13

Notes on Science & Christian Belief - Chapter 7 2009

7.7 REFERENCES
Alexander, D, 2008, Creation or evolution: Do we have to choose? Monarch,
Oxford and Grand Rapids.
Berry, RJ, 1988, God and evolution, Hodder and Stoughton, London.
Blocher, H, 1984, In the beginning, IVP, Leicester.
Burenhult, G, Ed., 1993, The first humans, illustrated history of mankind, vol. 1,
Queensland University Press, Brisbane.
Conway Morris, S, 2006, Life’s solutions: inevitable humans in a lonely universe,
CUP Cambridge.
Dawkins, R, 1986, The blind watchmaker, Longman, London.
Day, AJ, 1998, “Adam, anthropology and the Genesis record”, Science and
Christian Belief, Vol, 10(2), pp 115-143.
Finlay, G, 2004, Evolving creation, Telos Books, Auckland, NZ.
Finlay, G, 2004, God’s books: Genetics and Genesis, Telos Books, Auckland, NZ.
Jurmain, R, Nelson, H, 1994, Introduction to physical anthropology, West,
Minneapolis.
Leakey, R, 1986, The origin of mankind, Phoenix, London.
Lucas, E 2001, Can we believe Genesis today? The Bible and the questions of
science, IVP, Leicester.
Neild, D, 2004, God created the heavens and the earth, Telos Books, Auckland,
NZ,
Peters, T, Hewlett, M, 2003, Evolution from creation to new creation: Conflict,
conversation, and convergence. Abingdon, Nashville.
Peters, T, Hewlett, M, 2006, Can you believe in God and evolution? A guide for
the perplexed, Abingdon, Nashville,
Poole, M, Wenham, GJ, Creation or evolution - a false antithesis, Latimer House,
Oxford.
Spanner, DC, 1987, Biblical creation and the theory of evolution, Paternoster,
Exeter.
Thompson, JA, 2007 Genesis 1-3: Science? History? Theology ?, Acorn/Iscast,
East Brunswick.
Towne, M, 2003, Honest to Genesis: A biblical and scientific challenge to
creationism, Publishamerica, Baltimore.
Young, D, 1992, The discovery of evolution, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Author: Allan J Day 7-14

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 8 2009

Chapter 8 THE NATURE OF HUMANITY

Allan J Day

Author: Allan J Day 8-1

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 8 2009

CONTENTS – CHAPTER 8

Chapter 8 — THE NATURE OF HUMANITY .................................................. 8-1

8.1 INTERFACING BIOLOGY AND THEOLOGY ........................ 8-3
8.2 WHAT CONSTITUTES A PERSON—WHAT CRITERIA DO WE
USE? ....................................................................................... 8-3
8.2.1 Genetic anthropology.......................................................................... 8-4
8.2.2 Neurophysiological anthropology .................................................... 8-4
8.2.3 Physical anthropology ......................................................................... 8-5
8.2.4 There are other biological pictures................................................. 8-6
8.3 SOME RESPONSES TO BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY ..... 8-6
8.3.1 To reinforce reductionism: proponents......................................... 8-6
8.3.2 Retain outmoded theological models............................................. 8-7
8.3.3 To revise presuppositions about humanity .................................. 8-7
8.4 BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY............................................. 8-8
8.4.1 Perspectives ........................................................................................... 8-8
8.4.2 Nature of humanity.............................................................................. 8-8
8.5 SOME REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS ................................ 8-9
8.6 REFERENCES................................................................. 8-10

Author: Allan J Day 8-2

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 8 2009

8.1 INTERFACING BIOLOGY AND THEOLOGY

There are two interfaces between science and human personhood, ethical and
theological.
The rapid progress in reproductive technologies and of genetic knowledge has
emphasised the profound ethical implications that arise directly from the technological
power of modern biology. It is now more important than ever to be considered human, a
person. There are increasing threats to survival. These ethical aspects will be considered
later (chapter 10).
There is however another interface, a science/theology interface—that of using biological
knowledge to interpret the nature, meaning and value of “human life”. This has been
emphasised by three recent developments in biological science.
Firstly, with the Human Genome Program (HGP) we have the capacity, not only to
identify genetic disease and potentially to use both somatic and germ cell line therapy,
but also to identify completely the human genetic constitution. Never before has
humanity been potentially laid so bare.
Secondly, with the appearance (in February 1997) of “Dolly” and of somatic cell nuclear
transfer we have the clear possibility of human cloning—of Xeroxing persons.
Thirdly, the investigation of brain function has revealed a tightening of the mind/brain
link—the mind (soul) being integrally bound to the body (brain), rather than having any
independent existence.
Science, theology and ethics are thus inextricably bound up in the consideration of the
nature of persons. There are also implications and the threat of possible conflict between
developing biological science and some aspects of Christian belief.
In a response to these scientific issues, many religious authorities as well as politicians
are unconsciously joining the scientific reductionists in bowing to a genetic determinism
with regard to the nature of persons. In the opinion of many religious authorities human
cloning would be “a clear violation of the uniqueness of human life”. Even Bill Clinton at
a press conference at the Oval office in March 1997 indicated that cloning was more than
mere science it was “a matter of morality and spirituality as well…”. He described those
who might want to replicate themselves as “trying to play God”. Cloning is seen
therefore as a religious issue.
What it means to be a person needs to be examined however a little more critically.
• What does it mean to be human and when do we become human?
• Are these defined biologically, psychologically or spiritually?
• How do these perspectives intersect or do they conflict?

8.2 WHAT CONSTITUTES A PERSON—WHAT CRITERIA DO WE

USE?
There is little argument that humans should be treated differently to animals. The fact of
human rights etc. is universally agreed. There is also general agreement that a
moratorium should be declared on human cloning, to allow some of the issues to be
evaluated.
But the basis for personhood is not at all clear. What constitutes a person?
In trying to address these questions we need to consider a number of inputs from
various areas, genetic, biological, behavioural and theological, in order to get adequate
answers.

Author: Allan J Day 8-3

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 8 2009

There are a variety of anthropologies, derived from different standpoints. None of these
are complete in themselves, but form part of a complete picture of what it means to be
human.

8.2.1 Genetic anthropology

This is, biologically at least, the most fundamental level. Genetic technology has
now made it possible to determine, who we are in terms of our genes. These are
not magical life entities, but basic chemical (DNA) compounds. Genetic
anthropology thus focuses on our fundamental chemical basis.
The genetic code
Watson and Crick in 1953 reported the chemical structure of DNA. Two strands of
DNA were linked by four bases (Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine). These
were linked in such a way that Adenine/Thymine and Cytosine/Guanine were
always bonded together so that the two strands are complementary. The four
bases strung along a single strand could be arranged in a variety of sequences of
three, which coded for protein synthesis, each set of three representing a code
for an amino acid to be linked in a particular sequence to form a protein.
There was thus a simple genetic code, capable of an almost infinite variety of
sequences—an alphabet of four letters (bases) forming simple three letter ‘words’
strung together in longer or shorter ‘sentences’ that made up a gene, coding for
protein synthesis. Life had been demythologised, reduced to chemistry.
Thus all biological species from the most simple organisms through to and
including humans have a common genetic basis, differing only in detail. There are
differences in degree only from humanity to primates; 98% of the DNA is
common. All living things have a common history in evolution. This commonality
is emphasized by the Human Genome Program which potentially lays bare our
complete human genetic constitution.
Human Genome Program
Costing $3 billion and based at NIH in Washington, but with contributions from
many countries, it aimed to determine the complete human genetic constitution
by 2005. There are 23 pairs of human chromosomes, 1.5 million “potential”
genes, but about 20,000 actual genes. These have been sequenced and localised
and their function determined. The project ran ahead of schedule with a draft
sequence announced in 2000. The complete sequence was published in 2003. The
program raises important questions about who we are as persons. We have been
potentially laid bare.
Is this a basis for the consideration of human worth?
We cannot deny that our genetic uniqueness depends on only a 2% difference in
DNA from higher primates. But we must resist the temptation to reductionism—to
reduce our personhood to a purely genetic frame, expressed simply in a
rearrangement of the order of bases in our genes. Genetics provides only a
partial anthropology; however it is anthropology viewed from the genetic window.
There are other windows.

8.2.2 Neurophysiological anthropology

Humanity characterised by self consciousness—mind
There is an emerging new reality in humanity—not possessed by lower animals.
This is the property of self consciousness, the mind. This reality however is
expressed through the body (brain) and cannot be considered as a separate
“substance” from the body. It can be the subject of investigation and observation
and is now seen to be integrally related to the brain, not separate from it.

Author: Allan J Day 8-4

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 8 2009

Recent developments have seen a closing of the mind/brain link

This is indicated by a number of facts.
Physical aspects of mind can be investigated.
The mind is clearly expressed through the brain and does not exist apart
from it. This is illustrated by many observations of increasing
sophistication.
Broca 150years ago described areas of the brain associated with speech
problems, the ability to understand or communicate.
Phineas Gage, whose dramatic injury to his frontal lobes resulted in
definitive personality change.
Pychotrophic drugs have an effect on personality as does schizophrenia.
These can both be linked to physical or chemical brain changes.
Differing levels of various transmitters (changes in the chemistry of the
brain) are associated with mood disorders.
Neurophysiological changes accompany the perception of faces etc. in
experimental animals and can be tied in with cognitive activities in
humans. Even spiritual and creative artistic experience can be related to
changes in the temporal lobe such as temporal lobe epilepsy.
Mind thus cannot exist independently of the physical substrate of brain1.
Mind is not however just an epiphenomenon (a symptom) of the brain. It
does have a separate reality. Mind (soul) is expressed through the brain
but is not identical to it.
There is no basis for a separate existence (substance) of the “soul”
This is not to say that the concept of ‘soul’ as the “I”, the person, is not
helpful, but simply to say that neuroscience gives no basis for Cartesian
Dualism—‘the ghost in the machine’, the separation of matter and soul
(mind) as two entities. Although this would be the contention of most
neuroscientists there are a few that still espouse a dualist (body/mind)
view. Foremost among these has been the Nobel Laureate, Jack Eccles.
Jettisoning dualism and considering that the mind is expressed by the
brain is not to endorse monism, the contention that the mind is reduced
to the brain.

8.2.3 Physical anthropology

This approach emphasises humanity as a product of human evolution having a
unity with lower animals but evolving both in a genetic sense and in a cultural
sense. These aspects may be expressed under the following headings:
Human evolution
One race, but one with biological life—Australopithecus, Homo erectus, Homo
Sapiens being a series. Evolution however includes not just physical
characteristics, but also religious capacity, language capability and also the
generation of self-consciousness and freewill. The major physical aspect of human
evolution is the increased size of the cerebral cortex, but this has implications for
the non physical (mind/soul) characteristics which are revealed by cultural
anthropology.

1
Should one say, rather, that mind cannot function independently of a physical
substrate?

Author: Allan J Day 8-5

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 8 2009

Genetic and cultural evolution—Ayala

Both the capacity for language and the capacity for freewill (rather than
determinism) may be the result of both genetic and cultural evolution. The
evolution of the physical faculties for speech may be accompanied by the
development of specific language skills determined by cultural factors. That is,
the capacity for speech is genetic but the capacity to speak, for example,
Japanese, is cultural.
Implications
These conclusions, or this picture of humanity, may be threatening for some
Christians. However it needs to be emphasised that physical anthropology does
not give a complete picture of humanity any more than does genetics or
neuroscience. Anthropology does not say that humanity is not created by God,
but rather that an explanation of origins, including higher (unique) aspects of
humanity can be explained by natural mechanisms and have a continuity with
lower animals.

8.2.4 There are other biological pictures

Physiological, psychological, social etc. These are all different biological pictures.
They give different and complementary views of humanity. None give a complete
view, they complement each other. All are needed to provide a complete view. In
many ways as we move in any consideration of humanity from the most basic
(genetic) picture to those with complex systems (social and religious) we see new
and emergent properties appearing that cannot be described or reduced to the
level of physics and chemistry or to physiological systems or to brain responses.

8.3 SOME RESPONSES TO BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

The fundamental question is, do these pictures exclude a theological anthropology or are
there serious conflicts with such a picture?
It is an important issue since a theological anthropology, informed by Scripture, forms a
basis for our concept of human worth and dictates our ethical restraints with regard to
the manipulation of humanity.
Consider three possible responses which have been adopted.

8.3.1 To reinforce reductionism: proponents

This may be expressed in the context of various biological approaches. Let us
consider the contentions of three reductionists, one from evolutionary biology,
one from social biology and the third from genetics and neuroscience. All are
vocal exponents and all seek to reduce humanity to its basic component parts
Dawkins: DNA — the “River out of Eden”
Considers humanity as essentially a DNA survival machine. DNA is the
river that flows out of Eden. We are nothing more than “selfish genes”.
Aesthetic, moral and spiritual properties are reduced to these. `
EO Wilson: Genetic determinism — behaviourism
Considers all human behaviour to be determined by the chemical (genetic)
message of the DNA within cells.
Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis”
Relates to mind and DNA. Crick’s astonishing hypothesis is “That you, your
joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of
personal identity and freewill are in fact no more than the behaviour of a
vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules”. Susan

Author: Allan J Day 8-6

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 8 2009

Greenfield in her recent TV series promotes this view. Spiritual and

intellectual properties arise in the brain. There is no place left for the
mind or spirit. All are reduced to the physical brain.
Critique of reductionism
It can be experimentally asserted however that we are shaped by both nature
and nurture, by genetics and environment. We are not described even biologically
by chemistry (even DNA chemistry) alone. There is an emerging complexity at
each level of biology. The description at each level is complementary. The whole
picture being more than the sum of the parts. The physiological description
cannot be reduced to a physico-chemical, or a behaviorist view to a genetic one.
There are many levels of organisation. There are many different scientific
viewpoints from which we can observe and define humanity, literature and
theology also.
Emergent realities: levels of organization
This can be illustrated by the following diagram adapted from Peacocke (1993).
See also Murphy and Ellis (1996).
• LEVEL 1 – PHYSICAL: physics, chemistry, biochemistry, linked via DNA
and molecular biology with
• LEVEL 2 – BIOLOGICAL: cytology, cell biology, physiology, ecology, linked
via cognitive sciences (neuro biology) and sociobiology (behaviour
genetics) with
• LEVEL 3 – BEHAVIOURAL: consciousness, cognition, reasoning, social
psychology, linked via philosophy and theology to
• LEVEL 4 – HUMAN CULTURE: religion, linguistics, arts, worship, morality.
Each level is expressed through the mechanisms of the lower levels but is not
reduced to them. Each level represents a new reality more than just the sum of
the individual constituents.

8.3.2 Retain outmoded theological models

A second response is to retain outmoded theological models The second
response to the developing biological picture of humanity is to adopt a siege
mentality, to cling to outmoded models that are based not on truth but on
presuppositions, rather than to reexamine these models.
Conception, genetics and the soul
Many Christians consider immortality to be intrinsic, an expression of the
presence of a spiritual substance infused at conception—a soul. It needs to be
asked whether this is consistent with biblical theology or just an overhang from
Platonist metaphysics. It certainly presents a conflict with the modern scientific
understanding of mind.
Body, mind and spirit – dualism or tripartite humanity
Humanity as body and mind or as body, mind and spirit, give a fragmented view
of humanity which cannot be sustained by either biology or biblical theology. This
does not mean we must espouse reductionism, but we do need to revise our
presuppositions. We need to review and not therefore reject theological (biblical)
anthropology.

8.3.3 To revise presuppositions about humanity

We need to learn from history. Galileo forced a re-examination of concepts of a
central earth as Darwin did of a static creation. There is a need to relook at

Author: Allan J Day 8-7

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 8 2009

biblical revelation with respect to humanity and to determine what is the

theological picture of humanity; to reject a dualist understanding, but to consider
the reductionist implications of a purely monist model.

8.4 BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

8.4.1 Perspectives
Scripture views humanity from a different perspective than does biology. It is
concerned with purpose, not description or mechanism. Further, Scripture
complements but does not conflict with biological pictures of humanity. It
provides both a context and a limitation to biological technology. Humanity is
both the subject and the object involved with technology. What protection do
we merit? What right have we to play God?
Essentials
Several key elements can be highlighted. Humanity is created by God, is part of
the created universe, but is not God. Humanity is one with nature and animals.
There is a continuum in the Genesis 1 & 2 record. Humanity is however made in
the “image of God”. Therefore it has a special place in creation. “Imagio Dei” is
used sparingly in Scripture. It does not imply creation in God’s “physical image”,
but there are several aspects that are involved. These include self consciousness
i.e. mind, freewill, self determination, moral responsibility, character. Two aspects
in particular however are paramount.
Relationship, Gen. 1:26–28 and Gen. 2, 3.
There is a three level relationship. Humanity is created in relationship with
humanity, (male/female), with the rest of creation, and with God.
Representative “tselem” —image in the market place
To look after and care for the whole of creation. In Judeo Christian theology,
humanity has been elevated not to a centre stage role to dominate nature as
frequently caricatured, but as a steward to look after the interests and to care for
the whole of creation. “Playing God” or “interfering with nature” are emotive
terms often used in the genetic debate, but need to be seen in the context of this
stewardship role. Scientists have a theological mandate to act (but not a mandate
to pursue an agenda that is contrary to principles of justice and respect for
humanity as the object of their technology) as part of a theology of stewardship.

8.4.2 Nature of humanity

What does scripture say about it? What about the soul? See Brown et al. (1998);
see also Crick “The Astonishing Hypothesis”.
Gen 2:7 “God breathed… became a living being”
Humanity is of the earth—at one with nature. “Earth to earth” is emphasised in
the funeral service. Humanity is given life by God: “nephesh” means life (not
soul), cf. Gen 1:21. Life, emotions and heart, are all involved and are frequent
translations of “nephesh”. The picture is of a unity, given life by God, one person
made in the image of God. The Hebrew view of man was a very unitary one,
dependent for life and immortality on God. We are embodied “souls”, not dual
entities. “Soulness” represents the person, the “me”, the essential nature of
humanity, but is not separate or distinct from it.
New Testament
Greek culture was Platonist giving rise to a dualist or triist model of humanity.
Humanity was envisaged as having both a spiritual and a somatic component.
The spiritual component was eternal and survived, while the somatic was

Author: Allan J Day 8-8

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 8 2009

downplayed and evil. NT scriptural terms are derived from Greek culture, but the
NT concept of humanity does not differ from the Hebrew unitary view of
humanity. Body (soma), soul (psuche), spirit (pneuma) represent three aspects,
three views, of the one person. They can be considered as different aspects of
one person not as different parts or substances. Christian immortality and hope
does not reside in an immortal soul but in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15; creeds) of
the whole person.
Bube (1995) sets it out well. Humanity is viewed from three perspectives.
TERMS/MANIFESTATIONS FIELDS CHARACTERISTICS
BODY (soma) Chemistry DNA Looks
human
Biology Genes
SOUL (psuche) Psychology Self Consciousness Acts
human
Sociology Emotions, Mind
SPIRIT (pneuma) Theology Spiritual Relates to
God

Together we get a picture of humanity. Thus biblical views are not contrary to
biological views.
There may however be a need to reassess the presuppositions held by some
Christians and also by non-Christians about Christian views of humanity.

8.5 SOME REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS

Biology and theology give different, but not contradictory, views of humanity. They are
not in conflict although certain presuppositions may be. They represent complementary
views.
A biblical understanding of humanity confers a mandate on humanity to manipulate
nature. Such a mandate is not intrinsic, it is related to humanity’s place in creation. The
theological picture of humanity also sets limits for this manipulation, again related to the
place and potential of humans made in the image of God.
Theological anthropology is informed by the scientific understanding of humanity as
exposed by biological study. It is not however replaced by the biological view of
humanity. Rightly understood a biblical anthropology has much therefore to contribute to
a full picture of who we are as persons and is discarded at our peril as we move into the
new territory of molecular genetics with its increasingly powerful technology.

Author: Allan J Day 8-9

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 8 2009

8.6 REFERENCES
Barbour, I, 1990, Religion in an age of science, SCM, London, Chapter 7, ‘Human
nature’.
Berkouwer, GC, 1962, Man: The image of God, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Berry, RJ, Jeeves, MA, 2008, ‘The nature of human nature’, Science and Christian Belief,
Vol. 20 (1), pp. 3–47.
Brown, WS, Murphy, N, Maloney, HN, 1998, Whatever happened to the soul, Fortress,
Minneapolis.
Bube, R, 1995, Putting it all together, University Press of America, Lanham, Chapter 10,
‘Insights into Complementarity’.
Jeeves, MA, 1994, Mind fields, Apollos, Leicester.
Jeeves, MA, 1997, Human nature at the millennium, Baker, Grand Rapids & Apollos,
Leicester.
Jeeves, MA, Ed., 2004, From cells to souls – and beyond: Changing portraits of human
nature, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Jeeves, MA, Ed., 2006, Human nature, Royal Society of Edinburgh.
Murphy, N, Ellis, GFR, 1996, On the moral nature of the universe: Theology, cosmology
and ethics, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
Peacocke, A, 1993, Theology for a scientific age, SCM, London, Chapter 12, ‘Natural
human being’.
Peacocke, A, 1996, God and science, SCM, London, Chapter 3, ‘Human being’.
Polkinghorne, JC, 1994, Science and Christian belief, SPCK, London, Chapter 1,
‘Humanity’.
Sherlock, C, 1995, The doctrine of humanity, IVP, Leicester.

Author: Allan J Day 8-10

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 9 2009

Chapter 9 GENETICS, REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY

AND ETHICS

Allan J Day

Author: Allan J Day 9-1

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 9 2009

CONTENTS – CHAPTER 9

Chapter 9 - GENETICS, REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND ETHICS

……………………………………………………………………………9-1
9.1 INTRODUCTION - GENETICS, ETHICS AND THEOLOGY.... 9-3
9.2 SOME INFORMATION FROM BIOLOGY............................. 9-3
9.2.1 Reproductive physiology .................................................................... 9-3
9.2.2 Reproductive technology.................................................................... 9-4
9.2.3 Genetic engineering, gene therapy ................................................ 9-5
9.3 SOME ETHICAL NORMS ................................................... 9-6
9.3.1 General approach to ethics ............................................................... 9-6
9.3.2 Ethical principles in the biotechnology debate............................ 9-7
9.3.3 Questions ................................................................................................ 9-8
9.4 THE EMBRYO—IS IT A PERSON? ..................................... 9-8
9.4.1 The embryo is a person. .................................................................... 9-8
9.4.2 The embryo becomes a person at some definitive point. ....... 9-9
9.4.3 Embryo is a potential person—relative value............................ 9-10
9.5 SOME SPECIFIC ISSUES................................................ 9-10
9.5.1 Pre implantation screening.............................................................. 9-10
9.5.2 In Vitro Fertilization........................................................................... 9-10
REFERENCES ......................................................................... 9-11

Author: Allan J Day 9-2

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 9 2009

9.1 INTRODUCTION - GENETICS, ETHICS AND THEOLOGY

The genetic revolution has important ethical and theological implications. This has been
highlighted by a number of key developments in genetic knowledge and technology over
the last 20-30 years.
These include firstly the introduction of genetic engineering by recombinant DNA
technology in 1973. Initially this was followed by a voluntary moratorium for 2–3 years
to enable some of the implications of this powerful technique to be explored.
Secondly the commencement of the Human Genome Project in 1990 with a planned
completion date in 2005 (actually achieved in 2003). This program has created a number
of ethical dilemmas — some relating to the use of this information for insurance and
other similar purposes and some related to the use of the technology for gene therapy
etc. and the possible danger for germ line changes.
A third development is the cloning, by adult nuclear transfer, achieved for sheep in
1997. Dolly has become perhaps the most famous sheep in history. Human cloning
from adult human cells is now technically feasible, particularly bearing in mind the
enormous experience gained from in vitro fertilization technology over the last 20 years.
At present however human cloning is under either voluntary or legal ban in western
countries, but pressures for its use are mounting. There is also pressure from both
religious and political sources to prevent its use. Bruce (Church of Scotland Ethics
Committee) indicates it is a “clear violation of the uniqueness of human life”, while Bill
Clinton indicates that “those who wish to replicate themselves are trying to play God”
Before considering the basic ethical approach to this area, it is necessary to consider the
current scientific and technological background to the genetic revolution. To consider
what is known and what is possible. The field is rapidly developing.

9.2 SOME INFORMATION FROM BIOLOGY

9.2.1 Reproductive physiology

Conception and implantation
Conception occurs from the biological standpoint with the fusion of the gametes
or sex cells from the genetic parents. This results in the formation of a zygote
from the combination of the nuclear material of the ovum and the sperm. Genetic
fusion thus results in unique genetic material; i.e. a new biological individual
results to give a one cell zygote. The zygote then progressively divides to become
a multicelled organism—a blastocyst. One cell becomes 32, then 64 cells prior to
implantation. These changes occur as the fertilized ovum makes its way through
the Fallopian tubes to the uterus. Implantation in the wall of the uterus takes
place at the blastocyst stage at 10–14 days from fusion. There is some confusion
about the definition of “conception”. Biologically this is understood to take place
at fusion. However the term is often used clinically to represent the time of
implantation at 10–14 days from initial fertilization.
Preimplantation embryo
Several characteristics of the preimplantation embryo are relevant to any
consideration of its status as a “person”. The preimplantation embryo is
pluripotential—twinning is possible and occurs in a proportion of cases with the
division of the original zygote into two to produce genetically identical or
monozygotic twins. In addition particular cells from the zygote are not committed
to develop into foetal cells at this stage. They may develop into either placental
or embryonic cells. Moreover the removal of some of the blastocyst cells does not
prevent full foetal development. A further consideration is that in abnormal
circumstances a hydatidiform mole (a sort of cancer of the fertilized ovum) may
develop. This abnormality contains genetically unique human genetic material,

Author: Allan J Day 9-3

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 9 2009

but can hardly be considered on this criterion to be a “person”. The

preimplantation stage is also characterized by considerable wastage. Some 60–
70% of fertilized ova fail to become implanted or to develop further and they are
lost without any symptoms.
Embryonic growth and development
The term embryo is best reserved for the products of conception from
implantation to the 8th week. There is both rapid growth and differentiation. The
embryo attains a length of 2 cm, and a weight of 2 gm at 8 weeks. All main
systems are developed and the external bodily form established by this time.
Foetal period—8th week to term
This period is considered to be the foetal period. There is rapid growth, but no
major differentiation. Movements can be detected ultrasonically at 7–8 weeks,
and clinically at 17–20 weeks. Viability is often the product of better neonatal
technology. At present a premature foetus may survive from around 20 weeks or
about 400 gm in weight.
Central nervous system
Neural tube development commences at three weeks with a definite polarisation
of ends appearing. At this stage we can identify one end as the head. Cortical
differentiation is, however, progressive from 7–8 weeks, with gradual
development of cortical areas associated with consciousness etc., although the
details of such development are still unclear.

9.2.2 Reproductive technology

Artificial conception—IVF
The first infant conceived by in vitro technology was born in 1979 in Cambridge
(Edwards 1979). This is now a commonly used approach to infertility right around
the world with Melbourne playing a very significant role. Human IVF makes
possible the use of gametes from a variety of male and female sources and also
of surrogacy. Its use of genetic material from other than couples in a stable
relationship is however discouraged in many centres. In this case the biological
and social parents are identical. The possibility of donated gametes and of
donated wombs raises no technical problems, but certainly some ethical ones. In
vitro fertilization also raises problems related to embryo wastage, since often
large numbers are produced and not used. These may be stored for subsequent
use or be candidates for embryo experimentation. Again the question is asked.
Are embryos persons? This issue will be discussed below.
Pregnancy and prenatal diagnosis
Amniocentesis is a technique in which foetal cells are removed for genetic or
other appropriate examination. It is an invasive technique, which has some risk.
It cannot be performed until relatively late in pregnancy (18 weeks) so that the
question of subsequent action is difficult. It may form the basis of a
recommendation for an abortion under some circumstances where genetic
abnormalities are detected. However such abortions are more hazardous.
Chorionic Villi Sampling can obtain similar genetic information but can be done
much earlier (12 weeks). It has become a fairly routine procedure in pre-natal
care, but its role needs to be considered in relation to the potential use of the
material. Genetic diagnosis of both genetic constitution, or abnormality, or, of
course, of the sex of the foetus, is possible by present technology. However at
present little can be done with this information apart from it forming a basis for
abortion.

Author: Allan J Day 9-4

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 9 2009

Abortion—surgical and chemical (RU486)

Most abortions occur spontaneously and represent normal attrition or the removal
of genetically defective embryos. Most occur before implantation. Spontaneous
abortion needs to be distinguished from induced abortion, in which active surgical
or chemical intervention is involved. The surgical methods are now supplemented
by the use of chemical agents such as RU486 which is a progesterone antagonist
and prevents the continuation of implantation. The indications given for abortion
may be medical—to protect the physical health of the mother. Abortion is
however frequently performed for social reasons. With the advance of genetic
technology and of the prenatal diagnosis of genetic abnormality, the latter is
becoming an increasingly important indication. An extension of this indication is
the use of prenatal diagnosis and abortion to tailor infant requirements to order.
To select boys or girls or any other genetic feature for that matter. Thus we
achieve the undesirable end of the commodification or the “production of
children”.

9.2.3 Genetic engineering, gene therapy

There have been a number of key developments in this area over the last half
century.
Watson and Crick— 1953
The genetic code and its characteristics are considered briefly in Chapter 8. The
role of DNA and the four bases, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine in
forming a genetic code was not fully understood until 1966 even though Watson
and Crick had determined the chemical structure of DNA in 1953.
Adenine/Thymine and Cytosine/Guanine bonding ensures complementary pairing
of the two strands of DNA. The three-base coding for individual amino acid
addition in protein synthesis provides the basis for the chemical nature of genes
as the carrier of genetic characteristics.
Nobel Laureates 1963–1973
The period between 1963 and 1973 was particularly productive in elucidating the
mechanisms of DNA and RNA function. Transfer RNA provides a means whereby
the nuclear message is transmitted to the cytoplasm of the cell. The genetic
characteristics carried in the nucleus DNA are thus translated into somatic cell
activities. The mechanism for gene synthesis has also been elucidated.
Recombinant DNA molecular biology—1973
In 1973, as indicated above, techniques were developed for synthesizing and
cloning DNA. This raised tremendous possibilities not only for general biological
applications but also for human applications. Human proteins such as insulin or
human growth hormone could be synthesized by non human means. There was
also however the possibility of human gene therapy <has something dropped out
of this sentence?>somatic and germ cell.
Human Genome Program—A biological “moon shot”—1990-2005
This program is the biggest biological program ever attempted. Three billion
dollars based at NIH is committed to determining the total human genetic
constitution. It has been compared to a “biological moon shot”. It will be possible
to identify all the genes that make up the human genome and the aberrant genes
that replace these in genetic abnormalities. There are 23 pairs of chromosomes,
1.5 million “potential” genes, but only 20,000–30,000 actual genes. These will be
sequenced and localized and their function determined. The program raises many
ethical questions.

Author: Allan J Day 9-5

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 9 2009

Human gene therapy

Somatic 1990
The synthesis by cloning techniques of human genes which can be used to
replace deficient genetic functions in individuals so affected is now
feasible. Adenosine Deaminase deficiency has been treated by such
somatic gene therapy. It involves the introduction of modified white blood
cells and retroviruses into the bone marrow of patients with defective
genes. In this way the defective enzyme is produced.
Germ cell
This procedure is currently forbidden because of the potential dangers
involved with changing the genetic constitution of the individual. This is an
irreversible process involving as it does the substitution of synthetic genes
for natural genes in the germ cells which of course then replicate in
subsequent generations.
Cloning adult nuclear material—Dolly
As indicated above the technology for human cloning is now available and
conjures up all sorts of pictures of rows of little Hitlers etc. being produced in
laboratories. It certainly has its ethical counterparts that warn about proceeding
without due caution, but we need to be guided by proper ethical principles not by
emotion.
Stem cell cloning
Similar procedures may be used to prepare cloned embryos, which can be used to
produce stem cells—so called therapeutic cloning. These can then be used as a
source of transplant material.
The wealth of human and animal techniques available make genetic engineering a
powerful tool in the manipulation of biological nature. It also forces us to consider
the nature of being human and the implications of humanity for any biological
manipulation.

9.3 SOME ETHICAL NORMS

9.3.1 General approach to ethics

Problem of rules/principles
Ethics and morality need to be distinguished. Morality is essentially a set of rules,
whereas ethics provides a framework for making moral decisions. It is thinking
about moral behaviour—moral philosophy. In many areas and in particular in the
emerging bioethics scene there are no set nor clear-cut rules. We need to define
the principles that should determine our actions. These may often conflict with
each other. It is not appropriate for this to be an emotive response, but rather
one that is based on rational considerations.
Basis for behaviour
Classically the basis for behaviour may be defined by two types of criteria:
Principles—deontological ethics
Such principles may be derived from natural law, or from
biblical/theological principles or by society norms. However we are
reminded that we live in a pluralist society.
Consequences—teleological ethics

Author: Allan J Day 9-6

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 9 2009

This is ultilitarianism, the criterion being the production of the best result
for all (see Singer, Wells). There are limitations to both systems, but a
critique is beyond the present scope.
Morality and legality need to be distinguished.
Moral issues are concerned with what is “right”. Legal issues are concerned with
the protection of society or its weaker members. For example, embryo rights may
have both moral and legal aspects.
We operate in a fallen world—outside Eden.
Therefore we are frequently faced with the issues of the lesser of two evils, of
reconciling conflicting principles. Thus it is possible to conceive of a situation
where the “moral course” may involve actions that are “sinful” taken in isolation.
Pluralism, Christian morality
Again “what is acceptable” may not be “what is good”. The ethical view is not
necessarily the accepted practice. It is important however to respect autonomy of
decision, e.g. regarding abortion, homosexuality.

9.3.2 Ethical principles in the biotechnology debate

There are three basic areas for consideration in the bioethics debate.
Technology Dominion Stewardship
Medical treatment, including genetic manipulation, is part of the Genesis 1
stewardship mandate. We are not playing God, but exercising the mandate given
to humanity by God. The question remains however, how far can we go? Our
stewardship is exercised in an atmosphere of responsibility to God and his
creation. It is subject to limits. Questions of cost arise and of relative cost, where
(ethical) choices must be made. A single IVF treatment may be costly. Compare
this to a third world immunization program! Care must also be exercised in the
invasion of the technocratic approach into a relational field such as procreation.
There are no trite answers to these sorts of issues, but they must be considered
in supporting any responsible action.
Biblical understanding of family, marriage
Genesis 2 sets forth as a basic creation ordinance the institution of marriage and
of procreation as being conducted within a monogamous, exclusive, heterosexual
and mutually supportive relationship. Procreation is not just a biological function
associated with genetic sex, but with the development of children in a family
relationship. Sexuality is thus not just biological, but involves mutual support—
community.
Nature of humanity—human worth
Humanity is created in the “image of God”. Therefore human dignity does not
depend on any intrinsic value, but is determined by the possibility of relationship
to God. It is not determined by the value of an individual to society for example.
Human life is subject to the sovereignty of God and is not to be taken lightly
either in self murder or murder.
Exodus 20, “Thou shalt not kill”, is not just a negative proscription, but involves
the positive, preservation of life in all circumstances. However it will be noted that
Exodus 20 is qualified. It is a general principle, but there are exceptions in the
Hebraic law. The emphasis is on the preservation of life: both positive—“do not
kill”, and negative—to promote a climate to support life. Therefore it is concerned
also with the protection of infants from environmental assaults in pregnancy, with
famine in Ethiopia, with the prevention of road accidents and with the provision of

Author: Allan J Day 9-7

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 9 2009

cheaper HIV AIDS therapy to pregnant third world victims etc., because human
life is valuable to God.

9.3.3 Questions
• What about the foetus?
• What about the embryo?
• Are embryos persons? Do they have equal value?
Abortion, IVF, embryo experimentation, stem cell cloning issues are determined
by these questions.

9.4 THE EMBRYO—IS IT A PERSON?

Several possibilities present themselves. Firstly let us consider the proposition that the
embryo is a person. Can this position be sustained as some maintain and if so what are
the consequences?

9.4.1 The embryo is a person.

The first argument is based on biology. The embryo is a unique genetic individual.
Biological basis—genetic uniqueness.
It cannot be denied that at conception we have the beginning of a new, unique
individual. It is a strong argument for the value of embryo “personhood”. There is
a continuum from this point, both as a member of the species and as a “human
person”.
However, we must ask whether humanness is comprised of “genetic
uniqueness”.
Being human is not just biological or genetic. This position asserts that humanity
is fully described by their genes. This is a reductionist view and is discussed in
relationship to the nature of humanity in Chapter 8. We must reject that
proposal. In any case Genetic uniqueness may not determine humanness.
As indicated above “hydatidiform mole” chimera are abnormal, but have unique
human genetic material. They do not develop into a person nor would any
consider they have any claim to personhood. Again as indicated above the early
embryo is pluripotential. Twinning, therefore will produce two or more individual
persons, but with identical genes. The genetic material is thus not unique, but is
held in common with the identical twin. The early embryo develops partly into
placental and partly into foetal tissue. Thus any part has the potential for either.
Embryo wastage is extensive. We do not claim that the destiny of wasted
embryos is the same as for persons. An embryo therefore needs nurture,
environment, social surroundings to become a person, not just genetic
identity.
Moral or social basis—O’Donovan
O’Donovan considers that the status of the embryo is not defined by the
biological alone, but defined by our personal engagement, commitment as a
society. We have a stance of moral commitment: the embryo is to be treated as a
person. Care and attention are associated with the response to the embryo.
Thus all embryos are to be treated as persons, although they are not actual
persons; i.e. they are considered in relationship with society (and with God).
Philosophical basis - Iglesias
Emphasizes that there must be a distinction between the potential to become a
person, and the potential of a person. That is, ontologically the embryo is a

Author: Allan J Day 9-8

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 9 2009

person and becomes what it is. “What makes us persons is the kind of beings we
are” not the manifestations or attributes which may come later.
To consider the embryo is a person has certain implications.
Implications
The embryo would have full human rights, and be treated as of equal value to an
adult.
This consideration is relevant to abortion—no distinction can be made between
mother and foetus. It is relevant to the disposal of surplus embryos, and of
experimentation in IVF and in stem cell cloning.
What are these human rights re experimentation? They are defined by the l964
World Med. Assoc. guidelines and the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki. There are
three aspects emphasized.
• The importance of the research must be proportionate to the risk.
• Consideration of the individual must prevail over the interests of
science or society; i.e. life and health of the patient/subject is
paramount.
• Informed consent is required, and, if not possible, a procedure is only
considered if no harm is done to the patient/subject and the procedure
is for therapeutic purposes.
Cf. embryo research—death of the embryo i.e. issues of damage/consent.
These considerations do not hold if the embryo is not a person.
Does one therefore equate all embryos as persons?
This leads us to the second possibility.

9.4.2 The embryo becomes a person at some definitive point.

But when? There is a biological continuum, so no clear cut biological point can be
attested. There are, however, a number of points that have been suggested. They
include:
• Implantation: 10–14 days
• Neural development
• Early late, 3 weeks after birth or post birth.
• Quickening
• Ultrasonic 7 weeks, clinical 17–20 weeks
• Viability
• 20 weeks, but reducing
• Birth—continuing care is necessary
• After birth, cf. Singer
• Foetus is thus of no value
• Prochoice prevails therefore with abortion
McKay position
Attempts to cope with the wastage issue
Therefore we have M and X embryos, those that survive and those that
are wasted.

Author: Allan J Day 9-9

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 9 2009

Bases personhood on cortical neural development

That is, a decisive moment of maturation of the CNS before which the “I”
does not exist—there is nobody there—not a cognitive, relational agent.
This proposes development of personhood at some point.
M embryos can look back to the hand of God in their development.
X never reach development, therefore have no history.
There is no basis in Scripture or science to consider every embryo is a
person with a moral claim on us.
Implications of a step wise personhood
The pre-person embryo must be considered as a non person, with no rights.
Therefore it has no more value than a piece of “tissue”, such as a removed
appendix. It has the potential to become a person but is not a person. Therefore
it can not be treated as a person.

9.4.3 Embryo is a potential person—relative value

See G Jones (l987) p. 152:
“A human foetus is a potential person in contradistinction to an actual
person (a normal adult human) or a being with a capacity for personhood
(a temporarily unconscious person) or a possible person (a human sperm
or ovum) or a future person (a person in a future generation).”
Thus it has value at all stages, but the value of the embryo is less than that of
the six months foetus. For example, the potential person will become a person
with suitable nurture and therefore deserves to be treated with respect. In this
view a high premium is set on embryonic life at all stages but the value is less for
an embryo than a foetus etc. Protection is never absolute.

9.5 SOME SPECIFIC ISSUES

Finally let us consider some particular issues in this area.

9.5.1 Pre implantation screening

Cystic Fibrosis, Tay Sachs and Huntingdon’s Chorea are all serious genetic
abnormalities that can be detected by pre natal genetic screening. Should we
destroy affected embryos? Is the embryo a person?

9.5.2 In Vitro Fertilization

Are we playing God? The issues become more complex ethically as we move from
the simple situation of ova and sperm coming from the social parents to the issue
of donation of either ova or sperm or both. In this case the genetic and social
parents are not the same. A further move is to the usage of a donated uterus
(Surrogacy). With the production of excess fertilized embryos the thorny issue of
embryo experimentation also arises.
The following issues also raise significant questions:
• Genetic screening and abortion
• Gene therapy—somatic, germ line
• Cloning—reproductive and therapeutic references

Author: Allan J Day 9-10

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 9 2009

REFERENCES
Cameron, N, Ed., 1987, Embryos and ethics: The Warnock report in debate, Rutherford
House, Edinburgh.
Cole Turner, R, Ed., 1997, Human cloning—religious responses, Westminster Press.
Louisville.
Collins, F, 2006, The language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief, Free
Press, NY.
Fisher, A, 1987, IVF, The critical issues, Collins Dove, Melbourne.
Jones, G, 1987, Manufacturing humans, IVP, Leicester.
Jones, G, 2007, Bioethics: When the challenges of life become too difficult, ATF Press,
Adelaide. 2007
Nelson, JR, 1994, On the new frontiers of genetics and religion, Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids.
Peters, T, 1996, For the love of children, Westminster Press, Louisville.
Peters, T, 1997, Playing God?, Routledge, NY.
Peters, T, Ed., 1998, Genetics: Genes, religion and society, Pilgrim.

Author: Allan J Day 9-11

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

Chapter 10 THE EARTH AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

Ross H Macmillan

Ross H Macmillan 10-1

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

CONTENTS – CHAPTER 10

Chapter 10 THE EARTH AND ITS ENVIRONMENT................................ 10-1

10.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 10-3
10.2 WORLD VIEWS IN RELATION TO CREATION .............. 10-3
10.3 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING
OF THE EARTH....................................................................... 10-4
10.3.1 The earth in space.......................................................................... 10-4
10.3.2 The earth in time............................................................................ 10-5
10.4 MODERN EXPLANATIONS OF THE EARTH AND ITS
ENVIRONMENT...................................................................... 10-6
10.4.1 The White thesis ............................................................................. 10-6
10.4.2 Post-modern theses....................................................................... 10-7
10.4.3 The Gaia hypothesis ...................................................................... 10-7
10.5 TYPICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ...................... 10-8
10.5.1 Population ......................................................................................... 10-8
10.5.2 Food demand and supply............................................................. 10-8
10.5.3 Climate change.............................................................................. 10-10
10.6 MODERN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CRISIS ................................................................................ 10-11
10.6.1 Utilitarian......................................................................................... 10-11
10.6.2 Conservation .................................................................................. 10-12
10.6.3 A compromise position? ............................................................. 10-12
10.7 RESOURCE ALLOCATION .......................................... 10-13
10.7.1 Human demand............................................................................. 10-13
10.7.2 Our common good........................................................................ 10-14
10.8 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .................................. 10-15
10.8.1 Technical sustainability............................................................... 10-15
10.8.2 The ethical imperative ................................................................ 10-16
10.9 A THEOLOGY OF STEWARDSHIP............................... 10-16
10.9.1 Creation stories............................................................................. 10-16
10.9.2 Israel's history............................................................................... 10-17
10.9.3 New Testament teaching ........................................................... 10-17
10.9.4 Conclusion....................................................................................... 10-17
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................ 10-18
REFERENCES ....................................................................... 10-18

Ross H Macmillan 10-2

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

10.1 INTRODUCTION
There can be little doubt that there is in the community at least the perception of a crisis
in the environment. A range of views are expressed. Some argue that there is no crisis
or, at least, that it is limited or manageable. Many would see it merely as a crisis in
science or technology. Others emphasise the religious and theological background. Some
would offer a primitive spiritualistic, pre-scientific solution. Many Christians seek an
understanding based on both biblical and scientific principles. Some of the above views
are, of course, not mutually exclusive.
Humans have always altered the environment, but for most of history the effects have
been small in scale, diffuse in location and limited in time. Until the 16th/17thC., the
greatest effects resulted from agriculture as it developed from merely hunting/gathering
to a multi-cultural and later to a mono-cultural industry. The elements of a crisis, such
as the pollution of the air and waterways, which first appeared at a few locations in
Europe during the Industrial Revolution, still appear in developing countries where
industrialisation is taking place.
What then is the nature of the perceived environmental crisis?
To see it as purely a crisis in 'science and technology' is to fail to see the big picture.
Moltmann (1985), while acknowledging the pervasive roles of these, calls it a 'crisis of
domination based on the striving of human beings for power ...' and a crisis of the 'whole
life system of the modern industrial world'. This suggests that any study must be set in a
wider religious and social context. It is highly significant that modern science, and
particularly technology, developed in Europe in the context of a set of underlying
Christian values (Hooykaas 1972). It is not surprising therefore that in a course on
'Science and Faith' we should look back and seek to identify the respective roles of
science and theology in these developments. We begin (following Russell, 1994) by
consideration of alternative world views and changes in attitudes that humans have
adopted in relation to the earth, before considering some modern manifestations of the
crisis and the theological attitudes towards it.

10.2 WORLD VIEWS IN RELATION TO CREATION

Pre -scientific
The 'pre-scientific' understanding of the world was partly phenomenological (what
you see is what is true), partly mythical (a story with 'fantastic' elements to
explain the otherwise inexplicable) and partly spiritualistic (of a world ruled by
spirits). The ancient Near East and Australian aboriginal creation myths are
typical of such pre-scientific views.
Scientific
The modern 'scientific' world view which initially at least was materialistic,
reductionistic and rationalistic had its origins in the Enlightenment and Puritanism
in the 16th and 17 thC. It was based on success in understanding, predicting and
controlling the world. Key ideas were of reproducibility, predictability, verification,
proof, falsifiability and laws that provided a universal explanation. The scientific
approach treats the world, at least partly, as a 'mechanism' even when biology is
being considered (Russell, 1994).
Post-modern
The post-modern understanding of science frequently involves a disdain for
rationalism and conventional science because of the (perceived) destruction of
the earth in the name of science and technology. Creation and nature are seen
rather as organismic, mystical and spiritualistic (Russell, 1994).

Ross H Macmillan 10-3

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

Theological
While there may be truth in some of the above, Christian theology looks outside
pre-scientific mythology, scientific rationalism and post-modernism for an
appropriate understanding of humans in relation to creation. It claims a
revelatory basis that involves a 'creator'; the appropriate relationship of humans
to the earth is summed up in the word 'stewardship'.
Again some aspects of these may not be mutually exclusive.

10.3 HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING

OF THE EARTH

10.3.1 The earth in space

Russell (1994) explains three changes in the human understanding of the earth,
viz, its nature, position and status.
Nature — from isolation to integration
Early ideas from ancient Babylonian and Greek myths were of a flat earth,
floating on water under an over-arching heaven. However a spherical earth was
recognised from the 6thC BC as floating in space (Job 26:7). Greek cosmologists
(e.g. Aristotle 384–322 BC) integrated creation into a geocentric system but
made a distinction between heaven with circular motion but no change and ether
as the only element, and the earth with rectilinear downwards motion, four
elements (earth, air, fire and water) in which all was subject to change.
These Aristotelian ideas resisted theological criticism until Copernicus in the
16thC. Changes in the heavens (due to the appearance of super-nova and comets
etc.) and on earth (as illustrated by Newton's and chemical laws) suggested that
one view of science applied to both earth and heaven; this led in turn to a
(romantic) view of the unity of all creation. Scientific advances brought about the
integration of the whole universe as the subject of the one set of laws. 'If the
earth is "special" in any sense, then we cannot know this from science' (Russell,
1994).
Position — from fixity to mobility
The ancient idea that the earth was the centre of the universe had a
phenomenological basis. Copernicus transformed this understanding of a fixed
earth with heavenly bodies rotating about it to a rotating earth hurtling through
space around the sun which itself is hurtling through space. This led to a changed
view based on new observations of heavenly bodies—planets, super-novae and
comets—and the discrediting of old geographic ideas about earth, continents etc.
Augustine (354–430) explained that Scripture accommodated itself to common
human understanding and language. Hence there was no necessary connection
between 'position' and 'value'; removal of the human home from the centre of the
universe did not mean that it was diminished in status.
This change in the understanding of the earth from being the centre of the
universe to being a speck of cosmic dust whirling in the immensity of space
involved a vast transformation of the then current world view. 'What had altered
little was the understanding ... of human and other values that owed nothing to
science but much to theology' (Russell, 1994).
Status—from organism to mechanism
Ancient Near East mythical philosophy saw the heavens as part of God and the
earth as divine and organismic, giving birth to everything, including all life. This
'deification' of the earth gave rise to animistic religion. It was generally rejected
by the early Church fathers as not in accord with the Old Testament where the

Ross H Macmillan 10-4

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

worship of 'the queen of heaven' or of local gods was condemned. God alone
must be worshipped; '... the earth is my footstool ...' (Isaiah 66:1).
It was also superseded in the West due to the development of reformation
theology and the rise of modern science. Yet the idea of the earth and creation as
organismic has never been entirely eradicated; the notions of 'mother earth' and
'mother nature' live on in figures of speech, vague notions, superstitions and in
'folk theology'.
CONCLUSION — a mechanistic world view
The above changes and the rise of experimental science in the 16th and 17thC
transformed the world view, including nature, from organism to mechanism. The
connection between this and the Judaeo-Christian tradition has been discussed
elsewhere (Hooykaas 1972). This concept of 'mechanism' as in a clock (logical,
determinate, predictable and repeatable) was seen as an expression of the 'laws
of nature' which represented the will and providence of God acting in the
universe.
This rise of modern science involved the development of concepts based on
biblical theology: the removal of myth from nature, recognition of the 'laws of
nature', the adoption of the experimental method, doing science for its own sake
for the glory of God and controlling/developing the earth for human betterment.
The promotion of these scientific concepts arose within various Puritan (Boyle),
Calvinistic (Beeckmam) and Catholic (Descartes) traditions. However some, who
were major contributors to the mechanistic view (Newton), could never quite
bring themselves to believe in pure 'mechanism' at the immediate level.
By the mid 19thC the organismic view was superseded and the mechanistic view
was nearly universal. However the latter was both an ally and an enemy of
biblical theology. It involved: design which demanded a designer and a
mechanical view which became the base for apologetics; a materialistic,
reductionist view suggesting that the earth was nothing more than materials,
atoms etc; self sufficient deism in which the creator had left the clock after
creating/winding it up and a deterministic view in which creation was incapable of
accommodating either human free-will or divine providence and a mechanical
earth that was seen as expendable/susceptible to abuse.
In biblical terms the mechanical world-view has much to commend it. It includes
the idea of design and a designer, an element of determinism and repeatability,
the base for the scientific enterprise and technological exploitation but also the
ever present danger of damage or misuse. It excludes the organismic view and
the pre-scientific myths.

10.3.2 The earth in time.

Again, following Russell (1994), we can consider an historic sequence with a
commentary on each from a theological point of view.
A static earth
The pre-scientific view was of a largely static or at least cyclical universe, not only
in nature but in human history. There is an element of truth in this at least in the
short term scale of human life and experience (Ecclesiastes 1:4-7). But for many,
the Bible demanded a linear view of history moving, under God, toward a certain
destiny.
An earth in decay
An alternative view is of an earth as the scene of change and subject to
corruption and decay (Psalm 102:25–26) compared to the 'unchanging' heavens.
This was tied to an apocalyptic understanding of the end of history with the

Ross H Macmillan 10-5

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

coming of a new millennium (after Augustine's seven Christian ages). One view
(Luther (1483–1564)) was that:
'The whole world degenerates and grows worse each day . . . the last day is
already breaking ... the world will perish shortly' (cited in Russell, 1994).
Others, for example, Burnet (1635–1715), Donne (1573–1631), Wesley (1703–
1791), etc., saw the mountains, the irregular features and the roughness of the
surface of the physical world, as evidence of decay (especially since the flood)
because they were not made like that. Hence they were evidence of God's
judgment on the earth (Job 14:18).
An earth in equilibrium
The rise of natural theology led to a new understanding of earth, not just as in
decay but as evidence of the goodness and benevolence of God. Thus the
understanding was of the mountains as providing shelter from the cold winds and
their denudation as evidence not only for the decay of the earth but as a natural
process providing soil for the fertile flood plains. So the earth as a whole was
seen as in a geological cycle, with parts subject to decay while others were
subject to growth and rebuilding. The conclusion was that the earth was neither
static, nor in decay, but with a long, open ended history.
An earth of great antiquity
There has been a 'young earth' history from earliest times, popularised by Ussher
(1581–1656). This involved an active and frequent intervention by God for
example, in the flood. By mid 19thC most geologists accepted an active earth and
uniformitarianism (constant natural processes) where the time since creation did
not limit the period over which the present formation of the earth could have
taken place. Many scientists who were Christians distanced themselves from
'young earth' ideas as a result of unsuccessful attempts to produce a detailed
correlation between science and Scripture.
Contrast this with the major attack against the old-earth theory that came, not
from theological conservatives, but from science itself through Lord Kelvin (1824-
1907) and others. This was based on the age of the earth calculated on the basis
of the heat loss from it and from the sun (without including the then unknown
nuclear processes). All of Kelvin's calculations gave answers that were far too
small, although much longer than those for a young earth. However they brought
with them the possibility of change in the time scale available for changes in
other areas such as biology. He and others helped to establish a science that was
not inimical to theistic theology; its study was, as he said, 'the noblest privilege
which (the Creator) has granted to our intellectual state' (cited in Russell, 1994).

10.4 MODERN EXPLANATIONS OF THE EARTH AND ITS

ENVIRONMENT

10.4.1 The White thesis

The ignorant or arrogant despoliation of the earth has arisen, it is said (White
1967) by science and technology, which has developed the capacity, and the
Christian religion, which gave the mandate (Genesis 1:28) for human mastery
over nature and its subjection to suit human desires. However we need to
differentiate between what the verse, taken in isolation might be seen to justify,
and the general tenor of Scripture. There have been, no doubt, many
misunderstandings in the former but there is little biblical evidence, rightly
understood and taken as a whole, that would justify a 'dominion' attitude to
nature. Christian writers, while acknowledging the superior place of humans in
relation to the rest of creation, are also careful to emphasise human responsibility
for stewardship under God. As Calvin (1509-64) said: 'Let everyone regard

Ross H Macmillan 10-6

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

himself as the steward of God in all things which he possesses' (cited in Russell,
1994).
Genesis 1 places man as the peak of creation and as steward under God, an idea
which is reinforced in other places, e.g. in Genesis 9 and Psalm 8. While humans
are created in the image of God, their role is to rule in God's place which includes
ideas of care, use and enjoyment.
There is evidence from pre-Christian times and non-Christian areas (e.g.
Buddhist) that the idea of human dominion did not arise from Christian
understandings alone. Consider Bernal (1967) writing about Marxism: 'It will no
longer be a question of adapting man to the world but the world to man' (cited in
Russell, 1994). McPherson (undated) offers an alternative focus for White's
invective.
'I think that White aimed at the wrong target. A sturdy belief in unlimited
progress has characterised Western thought for centuries. This notion of progress
is not distinctively Christian by any means and it is this belief that should have
been White's target... The remedy ... is to sever science and technology from
their progressivist theology of history in which they had found their home'.
The White thesis will not do.

10.4.2 Post-modern theses

There are alternative, post-modern, post-Christian understandings of these ideas.
Post-modernism arose out of a rejection of the ideas of rationality and the
development of a more intuitive way of thinking. Its understanding of the created
order arises out of its religious roots.
Monism
Monism stresses the unity, interconnectedness and equivalence of all things. In
theological terms it erases the God-creation distinction. As applied to the earth it
would promote the conservation and preservation of eco-systems on the basis
that all things have equal status and the denial of human rights compared to
other life forms.
Pantheism
In pantheism all, including creation, is God. In ecological terms it implies that
plants, animals and places have spirits which are all part of the 'nature spirit'.
Seeing the earth as sacred may lead to opposition to its development for human
use since humans have no special rights. White (1967) asserts that by destroying
pagan animism, Christianity has made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of
indifference to natural objects.
These post-modern understandings have spawned a wave of beliefs under the
title 'new age movement'. Many of these echo what Christians have been saying
about Western culture but they subordinate rationality to intuition and mystical
ways of knowing. This in turn leads to a 're-deification' of nature, a return to pre-
scientific notions of an organismic earth, a rejection of modern science and a
fuzzy eco-spirituality (Lucas, 1996).

10.4.3 The Gaia hypothesis

A particular form of the post-modern understanding was given expression by
Lovelock (1987) in the hypothesis of the earth as a living system entitled 'Gaia'
(Greek goddess, mother earth). The name brings with it, from ancient Near East
myths, ideas of the earth as one of the 'gods' and as an organismic symbol of
fertility. While it may be best described as a conceptual model (Russell 1994),
Gaia began as a scientific hypothesis that the earth was a unified but unconscious
and purely mechanistic, self-regulating system.

Ross H Macmillan 10-7

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

The various responses to Gaia have been partly due to the various ways in which
the term has been understood. There is general agreement with the idea of the
earth as a self regulating system (based on negative feedback) that is able
actively to regulate some aspects of the biosphere, atmosphere, oceans and soil
so as to maintain conditions comfortable for life. Whether—as the Gaia hypothesis
supposes—the earth is 'alive' depends on what is meant by 'alive'.
While the idea of the earth as 'mother earth' is seen as a reversion to myth, Gaia
allowed a religious interpretation which, it could be claimed, was validated by
'science'. However the scientific aspect of Gaia has not been adopted by the New
Age movement possibly because of its distaste for science.

10.5 TYPICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

We consider briefly three areas that may be taken as representative of the
problems mentioned above, viz., population, food supply and climate change.

10.5.1 Population
Most would agree that, in any discussion of science-faith issues in relation to the
earth and the environment, population is a crucial factor. Beginning with Malthus
(1766–1834) many in modern times have warned about the limit that the earth's
resources would place on population growth; others have even predicted what
that maximum number would be. World population increased only slowly over the
previous centuries but is now over six billion and increasing at an annual rate of
1.4%.
The rate of population growth has increased in recent centuries largely due to the
reduction in death rate, due in turn to improved sanitation, nutrition and disease
control. There has not been a commensurate decrease in the birth rate which
only occurs when there is an improvement in the socio-economic status of the
population. While this rate of increase has existed before, two additional facts are
significant. Firstly this increase is based on a very high existing population and
represents a much larger numerical increase than has previously occurred.
Secondly some areas are increasing at a much higher rate which is likely to cause
severe local problems before community developments cause a decrease in the
birth rate and eventually a maximum in the population.
It is logical that greater populations will increase the demand for resources and
services. If these are seen as limiting, then the easiest approach to reducing
demand is to reduce population growth rate by limiting birth rate although there
is no agreement as to how far and how fast this should proceed. From a practical
viewpoint, in areas where life expectancy is short, large families are seen as
resource for the production of food and an 'insurance policy' against want in old
age. It is only when living conditions represented by health and nutrition are
improved that security in old age can be assured; the birth rate then falls and
population tends to a maximum.
Religious beliefs often promote large families, where a large family is seen as a
blessing from God. Limiting birth rate by artificial means including contraception
and abortion is therefore seen as contrary to the will of God and has been
proscribed in Roman Catholic teaching. This has led to population growth rates in
the Latin American countries of some 3%. In other areas family planning and
limitation sometimes based on socio-economic pressures have significantly
reduced birth rates and projected populations.

10.5.2 Food demand and supply

As a fundamental human need, food, which is the subject of both biblical and
scientific concern, is an appropriate subject for consideration in a course on
'Science and Faith'.

Ross H Macmillan 10-8

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

Food demand
Food demand is significantly related to population and hence the current, large
and rapidly growing population mentioned above causes a commensurate
increase in demand for food. At the family level the desire to keep ahead of the
personal and community demand for food (by increasing workers) is one of the
reasons that family size increases, a process which eventually compounds the
problem.
Any increase in socio-economic status of people also brings with it a
corresponding demand for improved quality, variety and availability of food and
especially increased animal and vegetable protein at the expense of carbohydrate
rich foods. There is also demand for increased food security to eliminate the
danger of famine resulting from natural or human causes.
Food supply
Food supply is also related to population and the energy resources that power the
food production system. This is especially true in developing areas where human
energy is often the limiting factor in food production, e g, by limiting the area or
the number of crops that can be grown per year.
Food supply, however is also related to the increase in production that is
achieved, not only by increased energy inputs in the form of fertilizer and
mechanisation etc., but through scientific development and optimization such as
plant breeding, pest and disease control and better farm management. There
have been enormous increases in food production in recent years and an
associated decrease in famine in some countries.
Meeting the need
While on the global scale food supply has generally increased to meet demand,
the most significant problem arises when other inputs are limiting, especially at a
local level. These include land, water, rainfall, pest and disease control and plant
nutrition. The shortage of these as a result of natural calamities (floods,
droughts, plagues, earthquakes) and human induced factors such as war, soil
degradation and salinity are likely to be critical. Many advances in agriculture for
the supply of food have brought with them increases in production but also
associated problems.
Pressures on agriculture to produce more or better foods often involve (for
example): land clearing and the danger of soil erosion, excessive cultivation
leading to soil depletion and erosion, intensification of cropping as mono-cultures
which are susceptible to pests and diseases, irrigation which brings the possibility
of water logging and salinity, modern crop varieties with the potential for
increased production under optimum conditions but also decreased production
under non-optimum conditions. In the light of these developments, many farmers
(both subsistence and commercial) opt for traditional technologies under a
general, if perhaps unconscious but understandable policy of risk avoidance.
New scientific developments in genetic manipulation in plant and animal breeding
give promise of increased production through pest and disease resistance,
increased growth rates, etc. However these developments often extend the
science to unknown and what are seen to be unpredictable areas. Many, in fear of
ecological problems, reject or warn against inadequately researched moves into
this technology.
The trade in agricultural products is of course one means of satisfying national or
local demand. However this can be used to distort the demand and supply of
basic food products; e.g, where land is used for the production of export crops
(such as to grow animal protein for the rich) in the place of staples (often
carbohydrates) for local consumption. On a global scale then the food problem is

Ross H Macmillan 10-9

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

not considered to be one of demand and supply but of distribution which in turn is
a problem of resource allocation both within and between countries. (See Section
10.7 below).

10.5.3 Climate change

Scientific research shows that there have always been significant changes in the
earth's climate. Much of the historical evidence available represents significant
natural variation over the long periods of time (millennia). It is only in recent
decades that observations have been adequate to measure the trends in climate
over shorter periods (decades). These show that the world is in one of its
warmest periods in recent climatic history.
The atmosphere contains about 0.03% carbon dioxide and this, together with
water vapour, maintains the temperature of the earth at about 15oC due to the so
called 'greenhouse' effect. This occurs because the atmosphere is naturally
transparent to visible radiation from the sun but is more opaque to the energy
that is re-radiated in the infrared range due to the presence of the carbon dioxide
and water vapour.
Any increase in carbon dioxide and water vapour, for example as a result of
burning fossil fuels, increases this effect and can be expected to increase the
temperature of the earth. Whether and how much this will occur is not yet clear
but is the subject of much dispute and research (Houghton, 1991). The climate
then, which is the long term result of the weather pattern experienced by the
earth, is the result of an exceedingly complex set of interacting natural and
human factors.
Natural factors
The natural factors include the seasonal and other long term changes in land,
vegetation, cloud cover, moisture content, oceans, ice and snow cover as well as
the effect of volcanoes, fires etc. At a more fundamental level, the parameters
based on these factors combine in a series of positive and negative feedback
loops. Such systems frequently become unstable and thereby generate extremes
of behaviour. It may be that we are presently in one of these extreme phases.
Human factors
The human factors are likely to have a more long term but perhaps no less
significant influence on climate. These result from changes in land use as a result
of agriculture, forestry, urbanisation and in the discharge into the atmosphere of
pollutants including gases and particulates from burning of fossil fuels and other
uses of chemicals. The significant question that arises is, to what extent the
current changes in climate that are presently being measured have been caused
by human actions or are the result of some significant but as yet unidentified
natural changes in the environment?
The influence of climate change (however caused) on local weather is not clear
but is likely to be highly variable. Some areas may get hotter/cooler or
wetter/dryer or there may be more frequent or greater extremes, e.g. floods and
droughts. The rise in sea level is more certain but no less alarming especially for
those living particularly on the coastal fringes of the Pacific Islands and the flood
plains as in Bangladesh.
One mitigating fact is that changes in climate are likely to be slow in taking effect
giving the communities time to prepare appropriate 'defences'. Assuming that the
burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause, these problems are clearly global in
origin. The responsibility for them is therefore likely to be proportional to the
respective contributions to the increase in greenhouse gases from the various
countries.

Ross H Macmillan 10-10

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

10.6 MODERN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS

In relation to these difficulties, various responses may be identified. For the
purposes of discussion we can identify the range by its extremes, viz. 'utilitarian'
and 'conservationist'.

10.6.1 Utilitarian
The utilitarian approach takes the big picture, the long term assessment and
usually works with large scale averages which blur many serious local and short
term problems. It assumes a generally optimistic attitude to technological
development and to the solution of any problems that arise. Even where the
Christian position is not explicit, the biblical command is adopted (Morgan 1992).
'Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it.’ (Genesis 1:28)
Further, historical experience is extrapolated to allow unrestricted population
growth (Beisner 1990 ).
'... if historical trends continue there is no rational basis for believing that
population will ever outgrow its ability to provide for itself using the
resources it develops ... on the contrary, what we learn from history is
that over the long haul and on the average per-capita health, economic
well-being and psychological well-being tend to improve faster than
population grows... From a Christian perspective of faith in a God of
providence, however, we can be confident that human population will
never present an insuperable problem.'
In terms of resources creation is seen as large—for many resources, large beyond
our knowing.
'Globally there is not the slightest prospect of us running out of any
natural resource that we need in the foreseeable future given a modicum
of care and common sense.' (Hore-Lacy 1996)
'Resources of all sorts will be less scarce in the future than they are
today'. (Beisner 1990)
Further, as Hore-Lacy (1990) claims,
' ... human ingenuity quite literally creates resources ...'
Society achieves this: by substitution of existing resource with new, perhaps
sustainable resources (fossil fuel by solar energy); by transformation (of matter
into energy in nuclear processes, of previously unusable/uneconomic minerals to
economic/useable ones, wood waste to paper, etc.); and by reuse/recycling of old
products into new (waste water to irrigation water, waste paper into cardboard).
Hence Beisner (1990), writing regarding oil, argues that we will probably never
run out because when the resource dwindles sufficiently, its price will rise enough
that people will conserve more and substitute other energy sources. Christians
who see resources as a God given gift rightly conclude that as such they are
meant to be used, where use would include preserve/enjoy; it is in this way that
the intent of the giver is honoured (Hore-Lacy 1990).
For the utilitarians and even for Western civilization Morgan (1992) highlights the
significance of the utilitarian approach by contrasting it with the environmental
movement.
'Environmentalism is now the main threat to Western capitalism and as a
consequence to Western civilization ... in its pure form it is as radical and
uncompromising an attack on the entire structure of Western society as
can be imagined.'

Ross H Macmillan 10-11

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

10.6.2 Conservation
Here one focus is put on the finiteness of earth's resources and capacities and on
the limit that these will impose, sooner or later, on consumption and pollution.
Others in the conservation movement focus on aspects of the environment such
as the preservation of what is often called wilderness—natural habitats such as
old growth forests, native grasslands, wetlands, rivers etc., in the name of
maintaining ecological diversity and other natural resources. Still others
emphasise the significance of pollution due to the discharge of wastes into the
atmosphere, waterways and the oceans. Various bases are used for a
conservation approach. Whether 'God/god' is seen as being involved will usually
depend on what beliefs or world view the observer brings to the experience. In
one 'secular' approach an appeal is often made to the aesthetic value of natural
areas and to feelings of a quasi-religious nature. It is on the basis of this
subjective experience that the demand is made to stop further growth and
development.
'The sooner an ethic based on respect for the natural world can be
adopted, the better. Whether such a philosophy is included as part of a
religious dogma is seen as immaterial.' (Ehrlich, et al 1977)
An alternative more pantheistic approach identifies God with the world.
According, for example, to McFague (1981), the world is the incarnation of God's
very being and presence ... to destroy part of the world is actually to destroy part
of the body of God. Expressed in human terms Berry (1987) is blunt.
'We are the generation when the day of reckoning has come. In this
disintegrating phase of our industrial society we see ourselves not as the
splendour of creation but ... the most pernicious mode of earthly being.
We are the termination, not the fulfillment of the earth process ... we are
the affliction of the world, its demonic presence ... the violation of its most
sacred aspects.' (cited in Collins, 1999)
Without necessarily agreeing with it, Newman (undated) expresses the
conservationist point of view at a more practical if extreme level:
'… all industry is seen as exploitative, dangerous and polluting ... all in the
name of progress but in fact just adding more affluence to those who
already have enough'.
The importance of conservation is expressed by Berry (1987) who writes,
'Ecology can rightly be considered the supreme subversive science ...
these ecological movements are threatening all those cultural
commitments that have brought about the present devastation of the
earth. This rising conflict is beginning to dominate every aspect of the
human process'.

10.6.3 A compromise position?

The brief comparison above of the (albeit perhaps) extreme views suggests that
the utilitarian and the conservation approaches are in serious disagreement even
about the facts, let alone any solutions. One implies that there is no problem, at
least that cannot be fixed; the other that a major crisis is looming and urgent
action is necessary. Of course no utilitarian would advocate the unbridled use of
the earth's resources nor would any conservationist advocate their total
conservation. Many would agree with Hore-Lacy (1990) that;
'We need to tease out the utilitarian aspect of stewardship without
violating the preservation/respect aspect'.
These ideologically opposed groups appear to express an ambit claim on the
truth; no doubt both are partly true. However the two such polarised positions do

Ross H Macmillan 10-12

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

not provide a useful basis for a compromise especially if they just snipe at each
other across the utilitarian/conservationist divide. Is there a position that takes
cognisance of both the economic and the ecological necessities? Many for whom
both of the above positions have some appeal suggest that there is. The idea that
best embodies this compromise, 'sustainable development', is considered later.
The earth's resources may be represented in terms of the quantities of materials,
the number of sites for inspiration, or capacity of the earth to absorb pollutants.
How would a limit on these resources manifest itself? Given the large variation in
the area distribution and consumption of resources and also in population it would
be surprising if there was a short run 'crisis' on a world scale. One would expect a
series of local crises, perhaps of increasing severity and frequency related not
only to demand but supply, particularly if affected by local war, famine etc.
There would be a slow decline in the standard of living for an increasing number
of people punctuated by conflicts over any resources that were limiting. Are we
already experiencing such conditions? It is implied in the utilitarian point of view
that the earth's resources can legitimately be consumed by those who have them
and or know how to utilize them, especially if they are used for an accumulation
of community wealth. (J Ralph cited in Hore-Lacy 1990)
But is there a limit to the amount of the earth's total resources that one
community can use to satisfy its demand, even if used for the accumulation of
wealth for that community? And, we might ask, for which 'community' can they
be used—local, state, national, first world, technically developed, white, Western,
powerful?
The question therefore resolves itself into one of inter-national or inter-
community resource allocation, a subject that receives little attention except
perhaps in the context of aid. Before seeking an answer to this dilemma it is
useful to consider how resources are currently being allocated.

10.7 RESOURCE ALLOCATION

10.7.1 Human demand

We can, again following Russell (1994), identify the following drivers for the ways
in which the earth’s resources are allocated and/or misallocated.
Human need
In accord with need, humans have sought to take what is useful from the earth's
resources and exploit it for personal and general use. The benefits of such
exploitation need no further emphasis. However nothing that is done is without its
side effects; every resource is to a greater or lesser degree used up or degraded.
A significant amount of damage to the environment arises from this legitimate
human activity. For much of history this was of a minor nature, was diffuse and
had little long term effect.
Human ignorance
While all such human activity affects the earth, there has usually been the failure
(initially at least) of knowledge or will to mitigate the side effects of those
activities. Hence while enjoying the benefits of development that society has
'demanded', we have caused damage. This is illustrated by the fact that 'the art'
(= the practice, the works) precedes 'the science' (= the understanding, the
optimisation) and does not, and perhaps cannot, foresee the problems that will
arise. Clearly much new science/technology is introduced without an adequate
understanding of its benefits and problems. In other ways the community is
'forced' to exploit processes with an intensity that is damaging; for example,
excessive soil cultivation in order to meet the urgent need for food.

Ross H Macmillan 10-13

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

Perhaps the adoption of a technology depends on the likely cost and or magnitude
of the dis-benefit to the user and to society generally. It is clear that the earth is
self cleaning for some, even many pollutants and at some levels of these.
However some would say that for certain modern chemicals with a long life (e.g.
uranium) and some modern techniques with potentially far reaching and
unforeseeable consequences (e.g. genetic manipulation), we need to learn from
our past mistakes and move more slowly in the future. It is, of course, not helpful
or logical for society to blame 'science' for the dis-benefits while itself enjoying
the benefits. Failure in the past is not with science per se, but with its human
exploiters among whom the scientists may have had a significant role.
Human greed
The application of much science in technological development and the
consumption of the earth’s resources has been driven (in part at least) by human
greed. This can be illustrated from our own experience at a human or corporate
level. The destruction of habitat, the taking of productive land, the substitution of
staple for export crops, the over exploitation of resources, etc., all illustrate the
point. In some countries exploitation for personal/local/tribal use is fostered by
local connivance, authoritarian regimes and personal corruption; its benefits are
often not shared in a way that could be considered satisfactory from a community
point of view.
Human aggression
Again the local despoliation of the earth by conventional war needs no emphasis.
Nor does the unimaginable damage of nuclear conflict and the possible nuclear
winter over the whole earth.
Human arrogance
Many aspects of the exploitation of science and technology can only be described
as arrogant. These arise from a rejection by humans of their role and
responsibility for the earth and the community. This is perhaps best illustrated by
the exploitation of people in working environments or in the promotion of
products that are known to be harmful to health. The early refusal of car
manufacturers to acknowledge the benefits of improved crash-worthiness in cars
or of cigarette manufacturers to acknowledge the dangers of smoking (even when
privately admitting it) are examples of such arrogance and its twin brother greed.

10.7.2 Our common good

All humans enjoy the results of the exploitation of the earth's resources. However
the above review suggests that resources for consumption are at times and in
some places often badly allocated without any long term community benefit. The
benefits of resource allocation are frequently privatised and the real costs and
dis-benefits of use are born by the community. Further, the discussion of the use
of the earth's resources on the basis of world averages is not helpful and only
serves to hide the large disparities between the first and the third worlds. For
many in our community this mis-allocation is unacceptable; they seek a
compromise to the above two positions and an alternative to what is seen as, if
not an unsustainable then an unethical global condition. This will involve not a
cessation of development but a reallocation of the earths resources and a more
targeted effort to improve the living conditions of the poor.
The conclusion of the above is that the immediate technical crisis is not one of
lack of resources per se nor of immediate collapse of the earth's ecological or
economic systems. Rather it is one of resource allocation on an inter-national as
well as an inter-community, inter-sector, inter-gender etc. scale. For the
Christian, the earth's resources are a gift and the resource allocation question
raises the further question: to whom is the gift given? For whom is it intended?

Ross H Macmillan 10-14

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

The undifferentiated statement of 'giftedness' and the command to 'fill the earth
and subdue it' are not of themselves a useful basis for addressing the disparities
mentioned above. Thus the ethical problem remains and will be considered later.
Can we begin to solve the problem of resource allocation; if so, how? The idea
that best embodies this compromise is 'sustainable development' an idea of
course that no one would seriously oppose.

10.8 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

10.8.1 Technical sustainability

The idea of sustainable development involves consideration of both economic and
ecological necessities. These are often seen as in opposition but those who adopt
less strident positions find that compromises are possible and that, for example,
sustainable resource management has a positive side particularly when the real
costs of a project are born by the project and are not transferred to the
community. The Bruntland Commission (Anon. 1987) which reported on the
environment and development sounded a realistic and hopeful note:
'This Commission believes that people can build a future that is more
prosperous, more just and more secure. Our report ... is not a prediction of
ever increasing environmental decay, poverty and hardship in an ever more
polluted world among ever decreasing resources. We see instead the possibility
for new economic growth, one that must be based on policies that sustain and
expand the environmental resource base. And we believe such growth to be
absolutely essential to relieve the poverty that is deepening in much of the
developing world'.
Various approaches may be suggested for promoting sustainable development.
International proposals
The Bruntland report suggests three major principles. The world must move
towards sustainable yields from forests, from the soil and from the ocean. The
world should grow economically so that the poverty in the third world can be
overcome as this is the main reason why the rain forests are being cleared, soils
are overgrazed and fisheries depleted and why populations continue to grow. The
world must develop industries that use energy, water and materials more
efficiently and have the highest environmental standards. Clearly if these
principles were applied we would begin to solve what all recognise as a serious
social and economic problem.
More specifically, treaties relating to the Law of the Sea, the International Treaty
on the Movement of Toxic Wastes and the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depletion
have been adopted and show that multi-national agreements can in principle
promote sustainable development. Other conferences on, for example green-
house gas emissions, have not reached equitable agreement probably because
the participants wish to avoid commitments which they perceive will be
detrimental to their long term economic position. Governments are the key
element at this level but, since ultimately individuals determine governments,
then power rests with them. The question arises, is the community willing to pay
the costs of implementing treaties and conservation measures that move in the
direction of sustainable development? The community is likely to be equivocal
over these matters.
Community work
For many in local communities the way forward is to think globally but to act
locally. Most communities can point to local industrial developments that are
sensitive to the environment. If we accept the smelting of aluminium using fossil
fuel as an energy source, then the Alcoa smelter at Portland Victoria ('The

Ross H Macmillan 10-15

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

Smelter in the Park') is an example of such a development. In terms of restoring

and protecting the environment, Landcare is an excellent example of a
community based rural movement that will provide, perhaps in the medium to
long term, a win-win, outcome for both the environment and the economic
welfare of the whole community. Again governments and many commercial
companies can and do promote this type of development through the provision of
'seed' money and matching grants.
Personal roles
The benefits of a personal commitment to and action promoting sustainable
development are many. While the sum of the total savings from action at the
'margins' of one's consumption might initially be small compared to the total
costs, such actions provide a psychological commitment to conservation in
principle that may lead on to more significant changes. It also provides signals to
others in the community and in Government that the community is willing to bear
the extra costs and is perhaps willing to move on to a greater commitment to
sustainable development.
'Hope recognises the reality of our environmental problems and then takes
small steps towards solutions. It is not wishful thinking nor is it a desperate
leap into the future; it is a quite clear vision that we move towards in small
meaningful steps, generally with a group of others.' (Newman, undated)

10.8.2 The ethical imperative

It has been argued above: that there is a crisis—but not necessarily of resource
depletion nor ecological or economic collapse; that it is a problem of global,
national and local mis-allocation of resources; that sustainable development at all
levels represents a technical, human solution (however poorly defined); that such
development will involve both economic and ecological compromises.
If we accept these conclusions, we are left with the problem of finding an ethical
imperative to drive the process. But we will not find such an imperative for
sustainable development and for the associated national/personal lifestyle
compromises within the socio-economic-technical field. They only answer the
question of 'how?'
The problem for humans in this, as well as in all other fields, is not one of
knowledge but of will (Romans 7:19). We seek an answer to the question 'why?’.
For the Christian, the authority of Scripture in relation to stewardship will (ought
to) provide the necessary imperative. Others who would not necessarily accept its
theological basis, nevertheless argue and work toward a similar end. Having
made that claim, we need to recognise the problem of how to interpret these
ideas about stewardship and apply them to a modern, scientific, industrial
society.

10.9 A THEOLOGY OF STEWARDSHIP

Any theology of stewardship concerns the relationships between God, humans
and the earth. Within the Bible, the teaching regarding stewardship comes
mainly from three areas: the creation stories, the history of the primitive, pre-
scientific, agricultural community of Israel and the teaching in the New
Testament.

10.9.1 Creation stories

In the creation stories where the idea of stewardship is implicit, we see that God
is the creator and sustainer and therefore owner. Creation is good, purposeful,
dependable (Sherlock, 1984). Humans are part of creation (Genesis 1:26, 2:7))
but are given a special role which we might describe as stewardship This is to be

Ross H Macmillan 10-16

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

seen: in humans having a role as rulers—having 'dominion' over the created

order (Genesis 1: 26–30); in the productive aspects of creation-'a garden to till
and to keep ...' (Genesis 2:15); in enjoying the fruits of the creation (Genesis
1:29; 2:16); in bringing some 'scientific' order to the creation by naming the
animals (Genesis 2:19–20) but with some limit on what was not allowed
(Genesis 2:17).

10.9.2 Israel's history

The ideas of stewardship are further drawn out in the history of Israel in their
land and by implication in its resources and production. For Israel, the land is
God's (as land owner) but is given to them as to 'strangers and sojourners' i.e.
to the landless living within the owner’s household (Wright 1997). For Israel it
was to be used and enjoyed to the extent of their satisfaction (Deuteronomy 8:
7-10) although it also brought with it temptation to forget God as both the
owner and giver (Deuteronomy 8:11-12, Brueggemann 1977). Their continued
occupation was contingent on their fulfilling the owner's commands and
retaining his confidence (Wright 1997). In particular Israel was also warned
against using the land in ways inconsistent with God's will, for example, by
exploiting a brother Israelite or the stranger within their gates (Leviticus 25:35–
38). Much of the Old Testament is the story of their failure to live in this way.

10.9.3 New Testament teaching

The New Testament teaching on stewardship is quite general and is expressed in
many different ways. It is frequently expressed in terms of the Christian's ruling
over the world in the name of Christ in a similar way to that of ruling over and
managing a household (Douglas et. al. 1962). Generally the ideas of
stewardship are expressed in terms of love. For example Jesus uses parables as
in the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37) and the rich man and Lazarus (Luke
16:19–31) as well as other direct teaching to illustrate and to command the
sharing of our goods with our neighbours in need. Paul in collecting aid for the
poor in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25), and John in 1 John 3:17, are but two further
illustrations of the example and teaching of the New Testament writers that is
consistent with the ideas of stewardship.
The question remains how this biblical idea of stewardship might be expressed
in our modern, technological, industrial and pre-industrial societies.

10.9.4 Conclusion
The ideas of stewardship are fundamental to the biblical story. The ideas are
both explicit and implicit, they are presented with both subtlety and authority
and speak to Christian and non Christian alike. They are not negotiable for the
Christian as a response both to creation and redemption; they are the epitome
of good works and Christian love.
But to know the truth is not enough. The world is often a place where humans
fail to live up to what they know. They take authority over creation, where the
creature is worshipped and served rather than the creator (Romans 1:25) and
where there is a serious mismatch between actual and intended purpose. So the
whole earth is tainted by sin and groans in anticipation of its re-birth (Romans
8:22). It is, as Moltmann (1985) writes “the enslaved creation that hopes for
liberty”.

Ross H Macmillan 10-17

Notes on Science & Christian Belief – Chapter 10 2009

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Quotations from The Earth, Humanity and God by Colin Russell 1993 published
by Routledge are reproduced by kind permission of Taylor and Francis Books UK.

REFERENCES
Anon, 1987, Our Common Heritage, Bruntland Commission, Oxford.
Beisner, EC, 1990, Prospects For Growth, A Biblical View of Population, Resources and
the Future, Crossways, Westchester.
Bernal, J.D, 1967, The Social Function of Science, MIT Cambridge Massachusetts.
Berry, T, 1988, The Dream of the Earth, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
Berry, T, 1987, The dream of the Future: Our Way into the Future, Cross Currents.
Brueggemann, W, 1977, The Land; Overtures to Biblical Theology, Fortress, Philadelphia.
Collins, P, 1999, God's Earth: Religion as if Matter really Mattered, Harper Collins,
Melbourne.
Douglas, JD, et al., 1962, 'Steward' in The New Bible Dictionary, IVP, Leicester.
Ehrlich, P.R, Ehrlich, A.H, Holdren, J.P, 1977, Ecoscience—Population, Resources,
Environment, Freeman, San Francisco.
Hooykaas R, 1972, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science, Scottish Academic Press,
Edinburgh.
Hore-Lacy, I, Barnes, I, 1996, Two Views on Managing the Earth’s Resources, Zadok
Institute Paper S82.
Hore-Lacy, I, 1990, Sustainable Stewardship: A Minerals Industry Perspective, Zadok
Institute Paper S48.
Houghton, JT, 1997, Global Warning; the complete briefing, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Lovelock, JE, 1987, Gaia, A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University Press, New
York.
Lucas, E, 1996, Science and the New Age Challenge, IVP, Leicester.
McFague, S, 1981, Imaging a Theology of Nature: The World as God's Body in Birch C,
Cobb, JB, The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
McPherson, J, Christians and the Environment: Why Bother?, Zadok Institute, Paper S61.
Moltmann, J, 1985, God in creation: an ecological doctrine of creation, SCM, London.
Morgan, H, 1992, ‘A threat expert’s view of the green movement’, The Age, Melbourne,
30 December.
Newman, P, ‘Hope and Despair: The Human Condition in Environmental Issues’, Zadok
Institute Paper S53.
Russell, CA, 1994, The Earth, Humanity and God, University College Press, London.
Russell, CA, 2008, Saving Planet Earth—A Christian Response, Authentic Media, Milton
Keynes.
Sherlock, C, 1984, ‘Creationism, Creation and Scripture’, Interchange, No 35, Sydney.
White, L, Jr., 1967, ‘The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis’, Science Magazine, USA,
March.
Wright, CJH, 1997, Living as the People of God: The Relevance of Old Testament Ethics,
IVP, Leicester.

Ross H Macmillan 10-18

 www.iscast.org

Published by ISCAST(Vic), Huntingdale Rd, Huntingdale, Victoria

ISBN 0 9578934 0 X Copyright © 2001, 2009 ISCAST (Vic)
Reproduction of these notes without written permission of ISCAST (Vic) is prohibited.