GENESIS AND EVOLUTION: COMPLEMENTARY OR ANTAGONISTIC?
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” Gen. 1:26-28
The unfortunate controversy between proponents of creationism(1) or so-called creation science versus evolutionary science demonstrates the difficulties Judeo-Christians face when we fail to ask pertinent questions that generate useful answers. We must recognize an important fact: The argument primarily takes place among Judeo-Christians, not between Judeo-Christians and atheists (or agnostics).(2) Even if further rigorous scientific investigations completely disproved the current model of evolutionary science, atheists would not automatically accept the Genesis accounts of creation as valid. Persons with the atheistic mindset would simply search for another scientific account of how the universe was formed and how life began on Earth without any divine influence or causality. Why? Because rejection of scientific theories and even laws through the scientific method always generates additional scientific hypothesis, followed by new or modified theories that lead to new scientific laws. From a purely scientific perspective, this process does not require including God in any explanation of the origins and operations of the universe, much less how life began.(3)
Cosmological Science or Cosmology
Cosmological science, a branch of Physics, explores the origin, structure, and development of the universe in an attempt to elucidate some of the most basic questions about our existence. Cosmology, like any science, utilizes the scientific method.(4) Astronomical observations from various sources (e.g., optical, infrared, and radio telescopes) furnished most of our cosmological data until recently. The advent of powerful particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider located near Geneva, Switzerland, allows direct experimental investigations into conditions that existed within the first few microseconds after God brought this universe into being and into other fundamental aspects of creation.
Although popularly regarded as a gigantic explosion or Big Bang, cosmologists tend to think of the initial act of creation as an expansion from an infinitesimally small, hot, and dense point termed a singularity. Inflating a balloon serves as an analogous illustration of the expansion. No simply analogy can be offered for the concept of a singularity, a point where space and time do not exist as we know them. Importantly, our space and time began with the initial moment of this expansion. The first several minutes of creation after the initial expansion were characterized by light so intense that it had mass. Cosmology gives us no explanation of what existed before this singularity or its origin; but, the obvious parallel with Genesis (Let there be light) may explain why some Judeo-Christians can more readily accept the Big Bang or expansion theory than evolutionary science.
The Big Bang included all of the components and parameters necessary for the universe to form and stabilize, and for biological evolution to proceed. Many authors have written easy to read explanations of how our universe began, descriptions that do not require a pre-requisite scientific background to understand.(5,6,7)
Evolutionary Science or Evolution
The term, evolution, refers to the process of change over time. In biology, evolution means changes in life forms with the passage of time, from the simplest unicellular organisms to the complexity of species existing today.
I markedly prefer the term evolutionary science rather than the theory of biological evolution used in the public arena.(8) Evolutionary science has the following components: (a) all forms of life on earth originated through common descent, (b) parent organisms pass on inheritable traits to offspring from one generation to another, (c) some changes, such as mutations, naturally arise when organisms have offspring, and (d) over time these changes resulted in the variety of life forms, including humans, we see on earth today. Although the concept of evolutionary science arose in many forms before Charles Darwin, he most often receives credit for the first enunciation of the idea based upon empirical data.(9)
Importantly, evolutionary science primarily deals with the development of subsequent life forms from predecessor life forms but does not postulate how life originated. Models, some of which come from laboratory experiments, have been developed to explain how the first living organism could have arisen from non-living materials. The present hypothesis postulates that all life began on earth when certain molecules self-assembled into a single replicating cell. This cell, through evolutionary processes that incorporated a high degree of randomness (trial and error), ultimately produced human life.(10)
The scope of Through The Wilderness does not encompass a detailed explanation of evolutionary science or a counterpoint to arguments Creationists and various religious fundamentalists have raised against the concept of biological evolution. Many excellent summaries, primarily written for non-scientific audiences, describe the major findings of evolutionary science.(6,11,12,13) As Richard Dawkins lucidly explains, all objections Creationists and others have promulgated to disprove or cast doubt on biological evolution have themselves been scientifically countered.(14) No gaps or so-called missing links exist in the fossil record. All contrary statistical objections, such as the supposed mathematical impossibility of the formation of eyes and other optical structures through random processes, have been thoroughly discounted.
Randomness In The Design
A major, albeit misunderstood, point of contention about evolutionary science revolves around the idea of “randomness” inherent in biological evolution: Random but inheritable changes (mutations) in the genetic material (DNA) of a parent organism produce offspring that may or may not be better equipped to survive (natural selection). If better equipped to thrive and survive through the heritable changes, new species ultimately will be produced, and older species will die out due to competition for food and habitat. For some Judeo-Christians, this randomness appears to contradict God’s providential design of, and care for, creation: How could a loving God allow creation to proceed through random processes?
An obvious answer resolves the apparent, but not actual, contradiction: Randomness constitutes an integral component of God’s design for the creation of living organisms. Two elegant books, each written by a faithful Judeo-Christian scientist, thoroughly illuminate this point.(6,7) Following the lead of these two authors, I envision God’s creative activity establishing non-random boundaries within which degrees of randomness can occur. While this internal randomness takes place with many varied results, the non-random boundaries cannot be crossed. The speed of light might be considered a non-random boundary (with a few exceptions according to Einstein). The Laws of Thermodynamics could serve as non-random or limiting boundaries: Numerous energy interactions can occur as long as they do not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. We might say, therefore, God specified the speed of light and Laws of Thermodynamics as boundary components of creation.
Perhaps a more mundane analogy will illustrate the idea of non-random boundaries constraining or limiting internal randomness, keeping in mind that all analogies suffer some lack of precision. From 1998 to 2009, Andrea (my beloved wife) and I lived in Franklin County near Lavonia, a small town in Northeast Georgia. A railroad, originally named the Elberton Air-Line Railroad, runs through Lavonia to connect Elberton to the east with Toccoa to the west. Construction of the 51-mile railroad was completed in 1878 with the express purpose of joining the Seaboard (now CSX) Railroad at Elberton with the Atlanta to Charlotte to Richmond Railroad (now the Southern) at Toccoa, thereby affording an easier transit of goods and people into and out of Northeast Georgia.
Several routes were proposed for the new railroad. A flat depiction of the area, such as an ordinary roadmap, indicates no obvious choice for the rail bed. The selection of any route seems entirely random. For instance, the railroad could have been constructed along the Broad River to the south of the present location. An examination of the area with a topographical map, however, clearly shows the rail bed running along the ridgeline between Elberton and Toccoa. Even in the later part of the 19th century, engineers knew that construction and subsequent maintenance of the railroad along this ridgeline required less energy (i.e., was more efficient) than any other route in that section of Northeast Georgia. The historical record of the Elberton Air-Line Railroad reveals the engineers understood construction along the southern route would have necessitated two bridges over the Board River and that drainage of water from the rail bed would be difficult. The parameters of the topography (non-random limiting boundaries) dictated one choice, among several, for the route. What, therefore, appeared to be the result of randomness was in fact a non-random selection.
If another group of investors had decided to invest and build a railroad along the southern route, which had some appealing characteristics due to the location of population centers, competition or “survival of the fittest” would have taken place with the Elberton Air-Line Railroad. Overtime, the expense and energy required to build, operate, and maintain the southern-routed railroad would have resulted in its demise. The Elberton Air-Line Railroad was more energy efficient and thereby able to win the competition.
This analogy illustrates what happens with biological evolution. Many pathways can be envisioned and actually embarked upon (random) but the energy constraints (non-random) will ultimately dictate the pathway of development and generation of new species from old. The enormous time scale over which biological evolution has taken place facilitated the development of human life through what may appear to be, but is not wholly, a random process.
Reconciliation
I believe the best way to reconcile Genesis and evolutionary science requires us to ask and answer appropriate questions. To this end, we may return to our Who, What, Where, Why, When, and How questions concerning creation.
Genesis gives us answers to Who, What, and Where, along with some information or reasonable speculation about Why:
Who God, of course, is the primary actor.
What Creation of all that exists, seen and unseen.
Where This universe, the site of our physical reality.
Why Based upon God’s statement about creation, And God saw that it was good(15), we can make a logical inference that God enjoyed the creative effort or that the outcome pleased God.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism, which I studied in my youth within the Presbyterian tradition, makes the following profound, if mechanistically vague and temporally imprecise, summary: What is the work of creation? The work of creation is God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.
We must turn to science, especially cosmology and evolution, for answers to the When and How questions.
When Genesis gives us no precise information about the When, other than the cryptic In the beginning(16) but, when did the beginning take place in real time? According to the latest cosmological estimates, the initial act of creation occurred some 13.73 billion years in our past.(17)
How Cosmological and evolutionary sciences provide the best available information on the mechanisms God employed to create our physical universe and to produce the various life forms, including humans, that have appeared on Earth.
A Personal Summary
My scientific background convinces me that cosmological and evolutionary principles comprise integral components of creation. My Judeo-Christian convictions compel me to believe that God designed and created all that exists. I am, therefore, a creationist who believes in an intelligent designer whose actions in our physical universe can be discovered through the scientific method and utilized. No conflict between religion and science should distract us as long as we remain clear headed about the questions we ask from each source of complementary knowledge.
The viewpoints expressed above trouble some Judeo-Christians. The concept that the initial act of creation incorporated all components and parameters necessary for the physical universe to develop into its present form and for biological evolution to proceed contains elements of Deism. This school of philosophy, to which some people grant religious status, grew from the intellectual ferment of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Many founders of our democratic republic were Deists.(18) The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution may be viewed as prime expressions of Deist political philosophy.
Deists believe this universe operates according to laws of nature that a Creator put in place with the initial act of creation.(19) This Creator then withdrew to leave the universe and humans to exist without divine supervision or intervention. Deists neither equate the Creator to the traditional Judeo-Christian God nor do they accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, although they agree he existed historically. Thus, Deism excludes divine revelations and miracles. A core principle of Deism specifies that humans can know this Creator only through reason and observations of nature. I depart from Deism on the following fundamental points: (a) I believe in the Judeo-Christian God, although I am reluctant to accept some of the characteristics traditionally attributed to God; (b) I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, although I cannot postulate an intellectually rigorous explanation for this foundational principle of Judeo-Christianity; and (c) I accept that knowledge of God through non-rational revelation can, and frequently does, take place.
Despite these reservations, a strong affinity with some aspects of Deism exists within my religious beliefs, a factor that resonates with my scientific approach to exploring the mysteries of creation. If God directly intervenes to change the outcome of natural laws God put in place at the time of creation, the universe and God become irrational and untrustworthy. Divine manipulation of the course of natural events on a case-by-case basis more than implies God can undergo a change of mind or intent. Such changeability or capriciousness would reflect imperfection in God’s original actions. An old philosophical but important question relates to divine changeability: Can our perfect God act imperfectly? I think not. Thus, what God brought into being must be perfect without the necessity of divine change.(20)
I realize many people in effect pray to alter the outcome of natural events, that is, to change God’s mind. A pertinent example occurs with prayers for healing. People get sick and recover, often with the help of modern medicine, as a result of natural laws. Even so-called miraculous cures seemingly outside the scope of current medical knowledge will ultimately be explained through scientific principles. Additionally, a random “healing” due to the probabilistic nature of disease and recovery cannot be excluded. A presumed correlation between prayer and a healing does not prove causality, that the prayers of the faithful resulted in recovery.
I previously stated my belief in prayer; however, I try to pray according to the insight C.S. Lewis put forth, Our prayers are not meant to change God but to change ourselves.(21) God would be subject to human emotions and transitory whims if our prayers could convince God to violate natural laws. What about purported Biblical examples of God apparently exhibiting a change of mind? I think these episodes illustrate humans aligning themselves with the will of God.
I issue the following challenge: Listen to the prayers of other persons and ourselves. How often do these prayers, implicitly or explicitly, ask for God to violate a natural law, in other words to manipulate God? Inclusion of the phrase, Your (God’s) will be done) does not alter the situation: If the universe and all within, including human activities operate according to God’s will, why should we pray for a change of God’s mind and intent?
The very idea, for instance, of a religious leader claiming to have prevented a hurricane from making landfall on the US coast(22) strikes me not only as idiotic but blasphemous, a total disregard of prayerful purpose and God’s perfection. In my best moments when I am under the influence of my better angels, I refrain from insisting that God must or must not act in specific ways. Nevertheless, while I can accept that God has the power to violate a divinely instituted natural law, I see no evidence that God has exercised this prerogative.
When I have broached these ideas, a typical response from non-scientifically oriented Judeo-Christians has been, “Therefore you must feel extraordinarily alone, separated from God.” I usually counter in two-parts. First, by stating I would feel even more distanced from God if I believed our prayers could alter the outcome of events and circumstances dictated by God’s natural laws, laws our perfect God put in place to maintain creation. Simply put, what about two persons or two groups of people praying for opposite outcomes? Does God have some way to assess the fervor of opposing prayers in order to choose outcomes? If so, how can we rely upon God to be consistent? Secondly, I profess my reliance upon the great promise St. Paul enunciated, No circumstances can separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ.(23) This reliance allows me to make sense of my place in the universe regardless of how the outcome of God’s natural laws may affect me. My task then becomes to align my will with my understanding of God’s will, including scientific laws by which the universe operates.
References
1 Creationism indicates a belief or doctrine that the Genesis accounts provide complete and accurate (i.e., inerrant) accounts of the creation of the cosmos and origin of life on earth. Creation Science refers to attempts to disprove Evolutionary Science through presumptive scientific arguments, all of which have been debunked.
2 Chapter 5
3 Chapter 4
4 Chapter 4.
5 Greene, Brian. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. 2004.
6 LaRocco, Chris and Rothstein, Blair. The Big Bang. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm.
7 Big Bang Theory – An Overview. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
8 Chapter 4, differences between scientific and non-scientific use of the term, theory.
9 Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Complete first edition available on-line at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
10 Colling, Richard G. Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator. Browning Press, Bourbonnais, IL. 2004.
11 Collins, Francis S. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. 2006.
12 Kung, Hans. The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K. 2007.
13 Ruse, Michael. Can A Darwinian Be A Christian? The Relationship Between Science and Religion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, NY. 2001.
14 Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, NY. 2009.
15 Genesis 1:25
16 Genesis 1:1.
17 The on-line encyclopedia, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe), gives an accessible summary, Age of the Universe, of how the most recent estimate of the universe’s age was determined.
18 George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin to cite some of the most prominent.
19 Deism in Wikipedia
20 Although not within the scope of this chapter, we must understand that evil, which results from our God-given free will, also represents a component of God’s perfect design for creation, if God cannot act imperfectly. I am not sure about the actual existence of the Devil, as opposed to evil; but, if God created all that exists, God also created the Devil (or what the Devil represents) and allows evil to occur.
21 C.S. Lewis. Find reference.
22 Robertson, Pat in reference to Hurricane Gloria. 700 Club on Christian Broadcasting Network, 1985. Honesty does compel me to point out that Rev. Robertson subsequently state, “I don’t think He (God) reverses laws of nature,” on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on American Broadcast Company, 01 May 2005.
23 Romans 8:38 – 39.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
CHAPTER 5
HOW CAN JUDEO-CHRISTIANS BELIEVE HOLY SCRIPTURE AND ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF MODERN SCIENCE?
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy? Job 38:4-8
First and foremost, Judeo-Christians should neither attempt to demonstrate the existence of God with science nor participate in futile efforts to impose legal constraints on basic scientific research. Using science to prove or, for that matter, to disprove God as the creator and sovereign ruler of all that exists, seen and unseen, distorts both science and religion because the methodologies intrinsic to each discipline differ in many respects. Numerous volumes have been written about this distinction but the crucial point relates to the collection and interpretation of data. Scientists utilize the scientific method(1) whereas for religion, non-rational (but not irrational) data serve as the initial foundation for the transition from unbelief to belief.
Despite the methodological differences, analogous “leaps of faith”(2) undergird Judeo-Christianity and science; hence, from first principles, both persuasive descriptions of reality can speak to each other without negative confrontations. The issue does not concern superiority but how Judeo-Christianity and science support and complement each other to give a more expansive and integrated explanation of God’s creation and continuing involvement in human affairs. Considerations of the comparative leaps of faith in the scientific and religious spheres apply only to Judeo-Christians. Atheists give no credence to Holy Scripture as an authoritative source. Absence this authority, conflicts between Judeo-Christianity and science obviously have no relevance, if for no other reason than issues of Biblical inerrancy need not be addressed.(3) I do not mean to imply that Judeo-Christians should refrain from witnessing to non-Judeo-Christians. Rather, the witness should first take place on grounds other than a discussion justifying both religion and science.
Uncertainty in Science
Two thought experiments may serve as an introduction to the leap of faith at the core of science. First, let us imagine we are about to toss a coin into the air and we ask, “What is the probability, or odds, that the coin will come to rest with the Heads side up?” If we discount the vanishingly small chance that the coin will land and stay on its edge, the probability of Heads showing at rest is 0.5 (i.e., 50%, 1:1, or even odds). We next visualize eight more legitimate tosses, each of which shows Heads at rest. After these nine consecutive Heads, we ask, “What is the probability that the tenth toss will show Heads?” The answer is still 0.5. Statistics instructs us that the random nature of results from a sufficiently large and even number of legitimate tosses ultimately will produce an equal number of Heads and Tails. Emphatically, no force operates in nature to pre-determine that the tenth toss is more likely to be Tails rather than Heads, despite the successive run of Heads. People who do not grasp this point gamble at their peril.
The second thought experiment addresses tossing a ball into the air. We ask, before the toss, “What will happen to the ball?” The answer is that the ball will rise to a height dependent upon the strength of the toss and then return to ground level. We have great confidence in this expectation. We have never observed anything different throughout human history: Objects projected into the air with accelerations insufficient to escape the Earth’s gravitational field or to go into a stable orbit have always returned to ground level.
What is the linkage between the first and second thought experiments? The former teaches us that nothing from the extensive previous observations of objects (e.g., our ball in the second experiment) propelled into the air predetermines that those objects will fall back to ground level. Some persons will immediately respond, “Gravity brings these objects back to earth.” More accurately, all these observations allowed the formulation of the Law of Gravity in its basic expression. Nevertheless, the best we can do is to expect, with a high probability approaching, but always less than 1.0, that the objects will come back down.
Scientific laws, therefore, do not rest upon absolute certainty but on events of extremely high statistical probability. Scientists make their leaps of faith across this inherent uncertainty because experience shows the universe operates with predictable reproducibility according to scientific laws we can discover and elucidate. Without this consistency, our lives would be intolerably chaotic with an untrustworthy creator. All the subsets of science (e.g., Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.) can be built upon the framework laid down by the leap of faith from irrationality or chaos to high probability and reliable reproducibility but not to certainty.
From Unbelief (Doubt) to Belief (Faith) in God
Modern usage confuses belief and faith.(4) The New Testament meaning of belief indicated binding loyalty to a person (i.e., Christ) through promise or duty. The Greek word translated as faith in the New Testament meant trust, loyalty, engagement, commitment to Christ through practically living out the Gospel message (e.g., feeding Christ’s sheep). Faith for Judeo-Christians should not be considered equivalent to belief in human-made opinions. We moderns probably would benefit from thinking trust or commitment when we read or hear belief and faith in the context of Holy Scripture.
Holy Scripture compels us, in the words of St. Augustine, to first believe and then to know.(5) We come into the Community of Believers through belief in God as the supreme power in the universe. We cannot know as opposed to know about God unless we first believe in God. If scientific experiments were able to demonstrate that God created and rules, belief would be irrelevant. Jesus always called his disciples and others who heard him to enter the Kingdom of God through belief or, more properly, trust and commitment.
We may use our rational and non-rational prowess to establish a basis for believing in the existence of God; but, regardless of the fervor and astuteness of our struggles, each of us must first cross from unbelief to belief without irrefutable scientific or rational proof. Some individuals, such as those born into and raised in the Community of Believers, will find a relatively narrow and shallow gap they must traverse. Other persons will come up against a wide and deep chasm, an abyss. Regardless of the distance and depth we face, the transit must be made by a leap of faith.
A devotional reading of Holy Scripture assists many persons in moving to belief. Individuals who hold fast to the doctrine of sola scriptura(6) may not worry about any perceived differences between scientific findings and Holy Scripture but will find belief by trusting that God will one day reconcile all such distinctions. Other Judeo-Christians with a more scientific orientation may negotiate the crossing with the realization that Holy Scripture was never intended to be a scientific textbook. The basis for the transit aside, once we cross from unbelief to belief, the entire edifice of Judeo-Christianity can be constructed. Theological arguments have led to somewhat modified structures, e.g., Catholic vs. Protestant, Baptist vs. Methodist, but the same pillar supports all variations of Judeo-Christianity: Belief in God manifest through the Holy Trinity,(7) and the witness and service of believers.
I have long struggled with the idea of how to convince persons outside a religious community about the concept of first believing in God as a prerequisite for knowing God exists and remains involved in human lives: My upbringing in the Community of Believers established the first basis for my belief years before I applied the full force of my intellect to the proposition of God’s existence. Once this application progressed through my fascination with science, I found no reason to disbelieve: I benefited from the witness of astute individuals who opened my mind to the fact that no actual conflict exists between the fundamental precepts of Judeo-Christianity and science. What, however, about persons outside Judeo-Christianity, how can they best be brought into this Community? I believe the way we Judeo-Christians live our lives, as exemplified by our profession, proclamation, witness, rejoicing, and service(8) reveals the appropriate answer.
Evaluation of Religious Truths
I dispute the claim that the Judeo-Christian religion, in contrast to science, necessitates abandonment of rationality in favor of irrationality. As a Judeo-Christian scientist, I can attest that equivalent mental acuity should be applied to both religion and science. Our God-given minds allow us to test and verify the “revelations” of religion and science.
How do we evaluate the truth and relevance of religious revelations in the absence of the objective data available to science? A common non-rational but real phenomenon, falling in love, furnishes an approach. Although science has made great strides in unmasking the biochemistry and physiology of why and how two humans fall in love with each other, no completely rational explanation of the process has been put forth. Genuine falling in love may transcend objectivity but our intellects must come into play once the full bloom of emotion or infatuation subside, in order to evaluate the possibility that we have succumbed to the spell of a powerful but transitory state of enchantment.
A “Damascus Road Experience” like the one that brought St. Paul to belief in Jesus Christ becomes a non-rational highlight of some peoples’ lives. Holy Scripture informs us about the power of St. Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord. St. Paul himself testifies that he was a Jewish scholar, and the epistles he authored show a fine mind at work. It would have been thoroughly in keeping with his training and character for St. Paul to have applied his intellect to differentiate between a nightmarish irrational occurrence and a non-rational but real event, even one outside the realm of objective rationality. Unless St. Paul was a lunatic, a supposition highly unlikely from the content and characteristics of his writings, we can be confident that his non-rational encounter withstood the test of his rational mind. I suspect the time St. Paul spent blinded allowed him an opportunity to assess what had happened. Additionally, St. Paul could not have undertaken his mission to the Gentiles if other Judeo-Christians had not quizzed him in detail about, and then agreed with, the truth of his “Damascus Road Experience”.
Once we make the initial leap of faith, all our religious convictions must withstand rigorous tests, as in science. We should apply our minds to even the fundamental aspects of our religious convictions. For example, we must disregard such bumper sticker concepts as, “God said it and that means it’s true.” Why? Holy Scripture contains many internal contradictions and does not always accord with what we have learned about the ancient and modern worlds.(9) We need to comprehend what Holy Scripture actually says before embracing the bumper sticker proclamation. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of our greatest Judeo-Christian theologians, spoke pertinently to the point: The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic (i.e., Judeo-Christian) not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.(10)
As discussed above, science rests upon statistical design and control. Similarly, a type of statistical verification pertains to religion. Observations, a form of data, collected over the centuries show predictably favorable and often dramatic changes in lives after people transition from unbelief to belief, including genuine love for brothers and sisters, ministry to the poor and disenfranchised, and other aspects of feeding Christ’s sheep. Critics of this proposition may counter, “Yes, but often accompanied by, or even supplanted with, anticipated unfavorable changes such as intolerance and persecution of non-believers.” St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, among many others, equip us with the proper response to this criticism: People who advocate and follow these negative outcomes from the religious leap of faith do not understand what Holy Scripture actually means.(11,12)
The Critical Interaction
Science and religion may reason together about how to use scientific knowledge. The following equation, a summarization of one of Albert Einstein’s major contributions to our knowledge about God’s creation, presents a pertinent example:
E = mC2
Thus, a massive amount of energy (E) can be obtained from a small amount (mass or m) of a substance (e.g., Uranium 235 or Plutonium) multiplied by the square of the speed of light (where C = 299,792,458 meters/second or 186,000 miles/second).
This theoretical relationship first found a pragmatic utility in the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. The awesome destructive power that can be unleashed from nuclear weapons and, as well, the tremendous potential benefits available from controlled nuclear power illustrate why science and religion must speak to each other to protect creation and enhance human life. We would be well served, therefore, by adhering to Albert Einstein’s cogent summarization: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.(13)
The great majority of scientists consider the unfettered right to follow all lines of scientific inquiry with the same passionate commitment as Judeo-Christians regard freedom to worship. All attempts to apply legislative or theological restrictions to research through coercion will ultimately fail. How, then, can Judeo-Christianity and science properly interact? By observing the following guideline: Judeo-Christianity legitimately provides a moral input for, and self-control of, scientists within the Judeo-Christianity community.(14) For example, Judeo-Christian scientists might of their own volition forego research on thermonuclear and biological weapons or into manipulation of the human genome for any purpose other than therapy to cure or prevent disease.
Admittedly, some Judeo-Christian scientists and many non-Judeo-Christian scientists will not ascribe any degree whatsoever of immorality to these and other areas of research but such potentially contentious topics mandate rational discussion from the viewpoints of science and religion. Application of scientific findings frequently generates more serious controversies than the original research topics. Judeo-Christianity, with its moral and ethical values, can serve at least to make us think about how we should utilize the fruits of scientific research. Judeo-Christians must engage in our prophetic mission, not to predict the future but to point out consequences.
When properly conducted, science expands our knowledge about God’s creation and constitutes a form of worship. Accordingly, the conversation between Judeo-Christianity and science ought to take place with mutual respect because Judeo-Christianity teaches us how to go to heaven and science teaches us how the heavens go.
References
1 Chapter 4
2 The term, leap of faith, is commonly attributed to Søren Kierkegaard, although he used leap to faith in his book, The Concept of Anxiety.
3 Chapter 1
4 Karen Armstrong, The Case for God.
5 Give reference.
6 Sola scriptura, Latin for by scripture alone, refers to the doctrine that Holy Scripture provides the only authority, and contains all knowledge necessary for belief in God. Sola scriptura demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.
7 For the purposes of this discussion, the Judeo-Christian “religion” refers to the belief in God, revealed through the Holy Trinity, whereas Judeo-Christian “theology” applies to the many doctrines that have grown from this basic understanding, e.g., Predestination, Free Will, Transubstantiation within Holy Communion, and Papal Infallibility to name only a few. These differing theological interpretations contributed to the formation of our various Judeo-Christian denominations.
8 Chapter 3
9 Pertinent examples among many are: Which of the two contradictory Genesis creation stories is more correct; on what day did Jesus die; did Jesus go to his death calmly or in agony; did or did not Jesus himself claim to be the only Son of God; is the Holy Trinity explicitly defined in Holy Scripture or is this doctrine the result of tradition?
10 Give reference.
11 Give reference.
12 Give reference
13 Reference.
14 Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy? Job 38:4-8
First and foremost, Judeo-Christians should neither attempt to demonstrate the existence of God with science nor participate in futile efforts to impose legal constraints on basic scientific research. Using science to prove or, for that matter, to disprove God as the creator and sovereign ruler of all that exists, seen and unseen, distorts both science and religion because the methodologies intrinsic to each discipline differ in many respects. Numerous volumes have been written about this distinction but the crucial point relates to the collection and interpretation of data. Scientists utilize the scientific method(1) whereas for religion, non-rational (but not irrational) data serve as the initial foundation for the transition from unbelief to belief.
Despite the methodological differences, analogous “leaps of faith”(2) undergird Judeo-Christianity and science; hence, from first principles, both persuasive descriptions of reality can speak to each other without negative confrontations. The issue does not concern superiority but how Judeo-Christianity and science support and complement each other to give a more expansive and integrated explanation of God’s creation and continuing involvement in human affairs. Considerations of the comparative leaps of faith in the scientific and religious spheres apply only to Judeo-Christians. Atheists give no credence to Holy Scripture as an authoritative source. Absence this authority, conflicts between Judeo-Christianity and science obviously have no relevance, if for no other reason than issues of Biblical inerrancy need not be addressed.(3) I do not mean to imply that Judeo-Christians should refrain from witnessing to non-Judeo-Christians. Rather, the witness should first take place on grounds other than a discussion justifying both religion and science.
Uncertainty in Science
Two thought experiments may serve as an introduction to the leap of faith at the core of science. First, let us imagine we are about to toss a coin into the air and we ask, “What is the probability, or odds, that the coin will come to rest with the Heads side up?” If we discount the vanishingly small chance that the coin will land and stay on its edge, the probability of Heads showing at rest is 0.5 (i.e., 50%, 1:1, or even odds). We next visualize eight more legitimate tosses, each of which shows Heads at rest. After these nine consecutive Heads, we ask, “What is the probability that the tenth toss will show Heads?” The answer is still 0.5. Statistics instructs us that the random nature of results from a sufficiently large and even number of legitimate tosses ultimately will produce an equal number of Heads and Tails. Emphatically, no force operates in nature to pre-determine that the tenth toss is more likely to be Tails rather than Heads, despite the successive run of Heads. People who do not grasp this point gamble at their peril.
The second thought experiment addresses tossing a ball into the air. We ask, before the toss, “What will happen to the ball?” The answer is that the ball will rise to a height dependent upon the strength of the toss and then return to ground level. We have great confidence in this expectation. We have never observed anything different throughout human history: Objects projected into the air with accelerations insufficient to escape the Earth’s gravitational field or to go into a stable orbit have always returned to ground level.
What is the linkage between the first and second thought experiments? The former teaches us that nothing from the extensive previous observations of objects (e.g., our ball in the second experiment) propelled into the air predetermines that those objects will fall back to ground level. Some persons will immediately respond, “Gravity brings these objects back to earth.” More accurately, all these observations allowed the formulation of the Law of Gravity in its basic expression. Nevertheless, the best we can do is to expect, with a high probability approaching, but always less than 1.0, that the objects will come back down.
Scientific laws, therefore, do not rest upon absolute certainty but on events of extremely high statistical probability. Scientists make their leaps of faith across this inherent uncertainty because experience shows the universe operates with predictable reproducibility according to scientific laws we can discover and elucidate. Without this consistency, our lives would be intolerably chaotic with an untrustworthy creator. All the subsets of science (e.g., Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.) can be built upon the framework laid down by the leap of faith from irrationality or chaos to high probability and reliable reproducibility but not to certainty.
From Unbelief (Doubt) to Belief (Faith) in God
Modern usage confuses belief and faith.(4) The New Testament meaning of belief indicated binding loyalty to a person (i.e., Christ) through promise or duty. The Greek word translated as faith in the New Testament meant trust, loyalty, engagement, commitment to Christ through practically living out the Gospel message (e.g., feeding Christ’s sheep). Faith for Judeo-Christians should not be considered equivalent to belief in human-made opinions. We moderns probably would benefit from thinking trust or commitment when we read or hear belief and faith in the context of Holy Scripture.
Holy Scripture compels us, in the words of St. Augustine, to first believe and then to know.(5) We come into the Community of Believers through belief in God as the supreme power in the universe. We cannot know as opposed to know about God unless we first believe in God. If scientific experiments were able to demonstrate that God created and rules, belief would be irrelevant. Jesus always called his disciples and others who heard him to enter the Kingdom of God through belief or, more properly, trust and commitment.
We may use our rational and non-rational prowess to establish a basis for believing in the existence of God; but, regardless of the fervor and astuteness of our struggles, each of us must first cross from unbelief to belief without irrefutable scientific or rational proof. Some individuals, such as those born into and raised in the Community of Believers, will find a relatively narrow and shallow gap they must traverse. Other persons will come up against a wide and deep chasm, an abyss. Regardless of the distance and depth we face, the transit must be made by a leap of faith.
A devotional reading of Holy Scripture assists many persons in moving to belief. Individuals who hold fast to the doctrine of sola scriptura(6) may not worry about any perceived differences between scientific findings and Holy Scripture but will find belief by trusting that God will one day reconcile all such distinctions. Other Judeo-Christians with a more scientific orientation may negotiate the crossing with the realization that Holy Scripture was never intended to be a scientific textbook. The basis for the transit aside, once we cross from unbelief to belief, the entire edifice of Judeo-Christianity can be constructed. Theological arguments have led to somewhat modified structures, e.g., Catholic vs. Protestant, Baptist vs. Methodist, but the same pillar supports all variations of Judeo-Christianity: Belief in God manifest through the Holy Trinity,(7) and the witness and service of believers.
I have long struggled with the idea of how to convince persons outside a religious community about the concept of first believing in God as a prerequisite for knowing God exists and remains involved in human lives: My upbringing in the Community of Believers established the first basis for my belief years before I applied the full force of my intellect to the proposition of God’s existence. Once this application progressed through my fascination with science, I found no reason to disbelieve: I benefited from the witness of astute individuals who opened my mind to the fact that no actual conflict exists between the fundamental precepts of Judeo-Christianity and science. What, however, about persons outside Judeo-Christianity, how can they best be brought into this Community? I believe the way we Judeo-Christians live our lives, as exemplified by our profession, proclamation, witness, rejoicing, and service(8) reveals the appropriate answer.
Evaluation of Religious Truths
I dispute the claim that the Judeo-Christian religion, in contrast to science, necessitates abandonment of rationality in favor of irrationality. As a Judeo-Christian scientist, I can attest that equivalent mental acuity should be applied to both religion and science. Our God-given minds allow us to test and verify the “revelations” of religion and science.
How do we evaluate the truth and relevance of religious revelations in the absence of the objective data available to science? A common non-rational but real phenomenon, falling in love, furnishes an approach. Although science has made great strides in unmasking the biochemistry and physiology of why and how two humans fall in love with each other, no completely rational explanation of the process has been put forth. Genuine falling in love may transcend objectivity but our intellects must come into play once the full bloom of emotion or infatuation subside, in order to evaluate the possibility that we have succumbed to the spell of a powerful but transitory state of enchantment.
A “Damascus Road Experience” like the one that brought St. Paul to belief in Jesus Christ becomes a non-rational highlight of some peoples’ lives. Holy Scripture informs us about the power of St. Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord. St. Paul himself testifies that he was a Jewish scholar, and the epistles he authored show a fine mind at work. It would have been thoroughly in keeping with his training and character for St. Paul to have applied his intellect to differentiate between a nightmarish irrational occurrence and a non-rational but real event, even one outside the realm of objective rationality. Unless St. Paul was a lunatic, a supposition highly unlikely from the content and characteristics of his writings, we can be confident that his non-rational encounter withstood the test of his rational mind. I suspect the time St. Paul spent blinded allowed him an opportunity to assess what had happened. Additionally, St. Paul could not have undertaken his mission to the Gentiles if other Judeo-Christians had not quizzed him in detail about, and then agreed with, the truth of his “Damascus Road Experience”.
Once we make the initial leap of faith, all our religious convictions must withstand rigorous tests, as in science. We should apply our minds to even the fundamental aspects of our religious convictions. For example, we must disregard such bumper sticker concepts as, “God said it and that means it’s true.” Why? Holy Scripture contains many internal contradictions and does not always accord with what we have learned about the ancient and modern worlds.(9) We need to comprehend what Holy Scripture actually says before embracing the bumper sticker proclamation. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of our greatest Judeo-Christian theologians, spoke pertinently to the point: The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic (i.e., Judeo-Christian) not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.(10)
As discussed above, science rests upon statistical design and control. Similarly, a type of statistical verification pertains to religion. Observations, a form of data, collected over the centuries show predictably favorable and often dramatic changes in lives after people transition from unbelief to belief, including genuine love for brothers and sisters, ministry to the poor and disenfranchised, and other aspects of feeding Christ’s sheep. Critics of this proposition may counter, “Yes, but often accompanied by, or even supplanted with, anticipated unfavorable changes such as intolerance and persecution of non-believers.” St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, among many others, equip us with the proper response to this criticism: People who advocate and follow these negative outcomes from the religious leap of faith do not understand what Holy Scripture actually means.(11,12)
The Critical Interaction
Science and religion may reason together about how to use scientific knowledge. The following equation, a summarization of one of Albert Einstein’s major contributions to our knowledge about God’s creation, presents a pertinent example:
E = mC2
Thus, a massive amount of energy (E) can be obtained from a small amount (mass or m) of a substance (e.g., Uranium 235 or Plutonium) multiplied by the square of the speed of light (where C = 299,792,458 meters/second or 186,000 miles/second).
This theoretical relationship first found a pragmatic utility in the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. The awesome destructive power that can be unleashed from nuclear weapons and, as well, the tremendous potential benefits available from controlled nuclear power illustrate why science and religion must speak to each other to protect creation and enhance human life. We would be well served, therefore, by adhering to Albert Einstein’s cogent summarization: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.(13)
The great majority of scientists consider the unfettered right to follow all lines of scientific inquiry with the same passionate commitment as Judeo-Christians regard freedom to worship. All attempts to apply legislative or theological restrictions to research through coercion will ultimately fail. How, then, can Judeo-Christianity and science properly interact? By observing the following guideline: Judeo-Christianity legitimately provides a moral input for, and self-control of, scientists within the Judeo-Christianity community.(14) For example, Judeo-Christian scientists might of their own volition forego research on thermonuclear and biological weapons or into manipulation of the human genome for any purpose other than therapy to cure or prevent disease.
Admittedly, some Judeo-Christian scientists and many non-Judeo-Christian scientists will not ascribe any degree whatsoever of immorality to these and other areas of research but such potentially contentious topics mandate rational discussion from the viewpoints of science and religion. Application of scientific findings frequently generates more serious controversies than the original research topics. Judeo-Christianity, with its moral and ethical values, can serve at least to make us think about how we should utilize the fruits of scientific research. Judeo-Christians must engage in our prophetic mission, not to predict the future but to point out consequences.
When properly conducted, science expands our knowledge about God’s creation and constitutes a form of worship. Accordingly, the conversation between Judeo-Christianity and science ought to take place with mutual respect because Judeo-Christianity teaches us how to go to heaven and science teaches us how the heavens go.
References
1 Chapter 4
2 The term, leap of faith, is commonly attributed to Søren Kierkegaard, although he used leap to faith in his book, The Concept of Anxiety.
3 Chapter 1
4 Karen Armstrong, The Case for God.
5 Give reference.
6 Sola scriptura, Latin for by scripture alone, refers to the doctrine that Holy Scripture provides the only authority, and contains all knowledge necessary for belief in God. Sola scriptura demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.
7 For the purposes of this discussion, the Judeo-Christian “religion” refers to the belief in God, revealed through the Holy Trinity, whereas Judeo-Christian “theology” applies to the many doctrines that have grown from this basic understanding, e.g., Predestination, Free Will, Transubstantiation within Holy Communion, and Papal Infallibility to name only a few. These differing theological interpretations contributed to the formation of our various Judeo-Christian denominations.
8 Chapter 3
9 Pertinent examples among many are: Which of the two contradictory Genesis creation stories is more correct; on what day did Jesus die; did Jesus go to his death calmly or in agony; did or did not Jesus himself claim to be the only Son of God; is the Holy Trinity explicitly defined in Holy Scripture or is this doctrine the result of tradition?
10 Give reference.
11 Give reference.
12 Give reference
13 Reference.
14 Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
CHAPTER 4: HOW DOES SCIENCE REVEAL THE MECHANICS OF GOD’S CREATION?
Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding. Job 22:23
My experience shows that Judeo-Christian scientists generally express markedly less reluctance to accept religious truths compared with some Judeo-Christian non-scientists who experience great difficulty acknowledging scientific truths. Much of the unnecessary confusion about, and even overt hostility between, religious and scientific truths stems from misconceptions about Biblical inerrancy(1) and a failure to recognize that Holy Scripture does not function as a scientific textbook. Holy Scripture gives us information about the who, what, where, and why rather than the when(2) and how of creation, two subjects within the purview of science.
USEFUL DEFINITIONS
The following definitions intrinsic to science may help clarify how scientists go about revealing the mechanism (i.e., the when and how) of God’s original and continuing creation.
Science
The term, science, refers to comprehensive or extensive information on any subject but particularly in reference to the physical universe, including biological processes. To be considered a science (e.g., Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Physics), a body of knowledge must be based upon careful observations, controlled experiments, precise measurements, mathematics to the greatest extent possible, and replication by independent observers. Accordingly, science seeks reproducible and predictable explanations for natural events.
Scientific Method
Modern science rests upon the scientific method, which proceeds through observations of natural events and/or experimentation designed to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. That is, the scientific method incorporates an objective process to find solutions to problems in numerous scientific and technological fields, as opposed to religious subjects. I firmly believe the scientific method constitutes an example of Holy Spirit-inspired revelation. The scientific method comprises the following steps: observation, hypothesis, theory, and law.
Scientific Hypothesis
The first step in the scientific method occurs with collection of empirical(3) data from careful observations of natural phenomena (e.g., astronomical observations) or from controlled experiments typically, but not always, conducted in a laboratory setting. Based upon these initial data, a model may be formulated in order to describe, in a logical fashion, what has been observed. As more data become available, a scientific hypothesis can be formulated. This hypothesis allows predictions to be made that can be tested by further experiments or observations. Importantly, scientific hypotheses must exhibit two fundamental characteristics: (a) generation of valid predictions and (b) capability of falsification, that is, additional data might show the hypothesis to be false. An hypothesis that does not allow valid predictions or that is shown to be false must be discarded or, at least, modified.
The falsification requirement eliminates the scientific validity of many truths within Holy Scripture. For example, God created all that exists, seen and unseen, precludes scientific verification because the hypothesis cannot be tested and shown to be false with the tools available to science. This lack of scientific verification, however, does not in and of itself invalidate a belief in God as creator. We may accept the truth of this Biblical statement on grounds outside the scope of science through non-rational(4) but nevertheless valid considerations.
Scientific Theory
A scientific hypothesis that survives extensive testing may be incorporated into the framework of a scientific theory, which generally includes more than one hypothesis to describe a large grouping of phenomena. the term scientific theory carries markedly more weight with scientists than the term, theory, as used in the non-scientific world. A scientific theory comes from the rigorous application of scientific methodology and by no means conveys or derives from a fanciful or “blue sky” suggestion or supposition. Much of the controversy concerning evolutionary science and the Genesis story of creation results from this semantic difference between scientists and some non-scientists concerning the use of theory.
Scientific Law
A scientific law arises from a scientific theory shown to be valid through a large number of predictions and empirical observations. Thus the procession, always based upon empirical data and valid predictions at each stage, sequentially involves:
Observations/Data
Model
Scientific Hypothesis
Scientific Theory
Scientific Law
CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE
The following characteristics fundamentally define science and the scientific method.
Iconoclastic
Icons are sacred religious objects or conventional presumptions in secular society such as the death penalty leads to a decrease in the murder rate; “God hates queers”; God favors the Republican Party; the Democratic Party best expresses the Gospel message; the United States was founded as, and remains, a Christian nation; heavier objects fall faster to earth than lighter objects when dropped from the same height. Iconoclasts are persons who break sacred objects. Scientists by temperament and training become iconoclasts because they always ask questions and question answers.
Data-Driven and Hypothesis-Generating
The scientific method discussed above illustrates this characteristic.
Probabilistic
Predictions of high statistical probabilities, but not certainties, establish scientific laws. A detailed discussion of this probabilistic characteristic, which derives from the null hypothesis, lies outside the scope of this book. A simple example, however, may illustrate the point. Suppose a clinical scientist wishes to determine if Drug(5) A is more efficacious (i.e., works better) than Drug B in lowering blood pressure. For the sake of this illustration, we may focus on systolic (i.e., the upper number) pressure. The relevant statement of the Null Hypothesis in this case would be: Drug A is no better than Drug B in lowering systolic pressure. The Alternative Hypothesis would be: Drug A is better than Drug B in lowering systolic blood pressure.
Why proceed on what appears, to non-scientists, an arcane approach to this question of efficacy? The white crow/black crow problem provides the relevant answer. We can make two statements that might appear to be equivalent:
A All crows are black.
B There are no white crows.
For statement A, we need only examine a sufficiently large sample of crows in order to assess the validity of the proposition with a high probability, typically 95%. For statement B, however, we must examine all crows on earth in order to assess the validity of the proposition. Obviously, one could never be sure that all crows on earth had been examined and that, therefore, no white crow had escaped our attention. This foundational principle, which I term statistical “theology”, generated many conversations between my statistical colleagues and me.
With this simplified background in mind, we understand that our clinical scientist will endeavor to test the systolic blood pressures of a large number of persons, randomly assigned to receive either Drug A or Drug B in a double-blind fashion (i.e., neither the scientist nor the test persons know the drug assignments) prior to and at intervals after administration of the test drugs. If the resultant data, within appropriate statistical parameters, show a lower average systolic blood pressure for persons who received Drug A compared with those who received Drug B, we may reject the null hypothesis (Drug A is no better than Drug B in lowering systolic pressure) in favor of the alternative hypothesis (Drug A is better than Drug B in lowering systolic blood pressure). Critically, the conclusion is probabilistic (again, typically with a 95% confidence level) because (a) while we know the average blood pressures differed between the two groups, we can only attribute, rather than absolutely prove, this effect to Drug A with a high degree of probability and (b) the clinical scientist did not examine all persons on earth in this trial. The confidence level rests upon the number of persons in the trial, the precision of the blood pressure measurements, and the variability of those measurements.
Although this example provides a simplified explanation, the point remains: Predictable events of high statistical probability, not certainty, establish scientific laws.(6)
Temporal
Scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws exist in the present moment and must be changed upon collection of contrary, i.e., falsification, data. Time dependency, therefore, characterizes the findings and conclusions of science. A common example illustrates this point: In the past, tobacco inhalation was not considered harmful to the health of a the majority of smokers; however, based upon current data, we now understand the deleterious effects of tobacco. The temporal nature of scientific conclusions perplexes, even frustrates, many non-scientists who wish for certainty at all times.
Self-correcting
By its very nature, science is remarkably self-correcting. If errors, intentional or unintentional arise in science, the scientific method eventually will reveal and correct them. This self-correcting characteristic explains in part why scientists consider reproducibility a requisite feature in assessing scientific conclusions.
Devoid of ethical, moral, religious, or mystical content
Science deals only with objective data that can be quantified. For example, because reliable scientific data cannot be obtained, science will not deal with what existed prior to the initial act of creation. Similarly, science will not add God, as creator, to any explanation of how life began and changes over time. No reason exists to write divine influence into any equation, hypothesis, theory, or scientific law. We may understand this point by looking at a straightforward example, a physical, chemical, or biochemical process that combines A with B to yield C, written in shorthand as:
A + B = C
Once we add in conditions for temperature, pressure, catalysts, etc., the equation thoroughly defines the process. It would be irrational to say something like, If God isn’t included, the transformation from A and B to C cannot occur because we can identify all the parameters necessary for the reaction to take place without putting God into the equation. Importantly from the perspective of science, unexplained phenomena do not serve as “proofs” of God’s existence and miraculous power but, rather, pose fertile areas for future scientific research.
A PERSONAL ACCOMMODATION
How do Judeo-Christian scientists reconcile the characteristics of science, particularly its refusal to include God, with religious principles? I can only offer my own accommodation. I previously stated that I was born into and have remained within the Community of Believers. I also am a trained scientist, with a doctorate in Biochemistry, who spent twenty years in basic biomedical research in laboratory settings and another twenty years working as a clinical scientist in the pharmaceutical industry. I experienced no great difficulty in reconciling my religious proclivities with my scientific career because, at the expense of repetition, I understood the differences in focus: Who, what, where, and why for Judeo-Christianity versus when and how for science. Thus, separate foci, investigative tools, and evaluative parameters produce separate but complementary answers about creation.
In this context, I am often asked, “Do you believe in prayer, do you pray in the laboratory?” The answers are “yes” and “yes”. I accept that prayer may be our natural status or primary method of communion with God; however, I would never pray for the results of my experiments come out in a specific way. Such a prayer fundamentally violates God’s natural laws, attempts to manipulate God, and denigrates human curiosity and intellect. On the other hand, I often prayed for the inspiration to design my experiments and to interpret the results in a logical fashion that would illuminate some aspect of God’s creation.
REFERENCES
1 Chapter 1
2 The Genesis descriptor, In the beginning, does not specify how long in the past the universe began.
3 Information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment, as opposed to suppositions. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company.
4 I employ the following definitions: Rational or empirical - information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment; Non-rational – information deemed to be valid even if outside the realm of rationality (An example would be the phenomenon of falling in love.); and Irrational – propositions that negate logic and reason, which have no place in science or religion (the idea that planets and stars influence our fate, the benevolent powers of crystals, the fallacy that we can communicate with the dead, and that God manipulates the minutia of the universe through violation of natural laws).
5 A legal pharmaceutical agent rather than an illegal substance.
6 The basic uncertainty inherent in science will be addressed again in Chapter
My experience shows that Judeo-Christian scientists generally express markedly less reluctance to accept religious truths compared with some Judeo-Christian non-scientists who experience great difficulty acknowledging scientific truths. Much of the unnecessary confusion about, and even overt hostility between, religious and scientific truths stems from misconceptions about Biblical inerrancy(1) and a failure to recognize that Holy Scripture does not function as a scientific textbook. Holy Scripture gives us information about the who, what, where, and why rather than the when(2) and how of creation, two subjects within the purview of science.
USEFUL DEFINITIONS
The following definitions intrinsic to science may help clarify how scientists go about revealing the mechanism (i.e., the when and how) of God’s original and continuing creation.
Science
The term, science, refers to comprehensive or extensive information on any subject but particularly in reference to the physical universe, including biological processes. To be considered a science (e.g., Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, Physics), a body of knowledge must be based upon careful observations, controlled experiments, precise measurements, mathematics to the greatest extent possible, and replication by independent observers. Accordingly, science seeks reproducible and predictable explanations for natural events.
Scientific Method
Modern science rests upon the scientific method, which proceeds through observations of natural events and/or experimentation designed to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. That is, the scientific method incorporates an objective process to find solutions to problems in numerous scientific and technological fields, as opposed to religious subjects. I firmly believe the scientific method constitutes an example of Holy Spirit-inspired revelation. The scientific method comprises the following steps: observation, hypothesis, theory, and law.
Scientific Hypothesis
The first step in the scientific method occurs with collection of empirical(3) data from careful observations of natural phenomena (e.g., astronomical observations) or from controlled experiments typically, but not always, conducted in a laboratory setting. Based upon these initial data, a model may be formulated in order to describe, in a logical fashion, what has been observed. As more data become available, a scientific hypothesis can be formulated. This hypothesis allows predictions to be made that can be tested by further experiments or observations. Importantly, scientific hypotheses must exhibit two fundamental characteristics: (a) generation of valid predictions and (b) capability of falsification, that is, additional data might show the hypothesis to be false. An hypothesis that does not allow valid predictions or that is shown to be false must be discarded or, at least, modified.
The falsification requirement eliminates the scientific validity of many truths within Holy Scripture. For example, God created all that exists, seen and unseen, precludes scientific verification because the hypothesis cannot be tested and shown to be false with the tools available to science. This lack of scientific verification, however, does not in and of itself invalidate a belief in God as creator. We may accept the truth of this Biblical statement on grounds outside the scope of science through non-rational(4) but nevertheless valid considerations.
Scientific Theory
A scientific hypothesis that survives extensive testing may be incorporated into the framework of a scientific theory, which generally includes more than one hypothesis to describe a large grouping of phenomena. the term scientific theory carries markedly more weight with scientists than the term, theory, as used in the non-scientific world. A scientific theory comes from the rigorous application of scientific methodology and by no means conveys or derives from a fanciful or “blue sky” suggestion or supposition. Much of the controversy concerning evolutionary science and the Genesis story of creation results from this semantic difference between scientists and some non-scientists concerning the use of theory.
Scientific Law
A scientific law arises from a scientific theory shown to be valid through a large number of predictions and empirical observations. Thus the procession, always based upon empirical data and valid predictions at each stage, sequentially involves:
Observations/Data
Model
Scientific Hypothesis
Scientific Theory
Scientific Law
CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE
The following characteristics fundamentally define science and the scientific method.
Iconoclastic
Icons are sacred religious objects or conventional presumptions in secular society such as the death penalty leads to a decrease in the murder rate; “God hates queers”; God favors the Republican Party; the Democratic Party best expresses the Gospel message; the United States was founded as, and remains, a Christian nation; heavier objects fall faster to earth than lighter objects when dropped from the same height. Iconoclasts are persons who break sacred objects. Scientists by temperament and training become iconoclasts because they always ask questions and question answers.
Data-Driven and Hypothesis-Generating
The scientific method discussed above illustrates this characteristic.
Probabilistic
Predictions of high statistical probabilities, but not certainties, establish scientific laws. A detailed discussion of this probabilistic characteristic, which derives from the null hypothesis, lies outside the scope of this book. A simple example, however, may illustrate the point. Suppose a clinical scientist wishes to determine if Drug(5) A is more efficacious (i.e., works better) than Drug B in lowering blood pressure. For the sake of this illustration, we may focus on systolic (i.e., the upper number) pressure. The relevant statement of the Null Hypothesis in this case would be: Drug A is no better than Drug B in lowering systolic pressure. The Alternative Hypothesis would be: Drug A is better than Drug B in lowering systolic blood pressure.
Why proceed on what appears, to non-scientists, an arcane approach to this question of efficacy? The white crow/black crow problem provides the relevant answer. We can make two statements that might appear to be equivalent:
A All crows are black.
B There are no white crows.
For statement A, we need only examine a sufficiently large sample of crows in order to assess the validity of the proposition with a high probability, typically 95%. For statement B, however, we must examine all crows on earth in order to assess the validity of the proposition. Obviously, one could never be sure that all crows on earth had been examined and that, therefore, no white crow had escaped our attention. This foundational principle, which I term statistical “theology”, generated many conversations between my statistical colleagues and me.
With this simplified background in mind, we understand that our clinical scientist will endeavor to test the systolic blood pressures of a large number of persons, randomly assigned to receive either Drug A or Drug B in a double-blind fashion (i.e., neither the scientist nor the test persons know the drug assignments) prior to and at intervals after administration of the test drugs. If the resultant data, within appropriate statistical parameters, show a lower average systolic blood pressure for persons who received Drug A compared with those who received Drug B, we may reject the null hypothesis (Drug A is no better than Drug B in lowering systolic pressure) in favor of the alternative hypothesis (Drug A is better than Drug B in lowering systolic blood pressure). Critically, the conclusion is probabilistic (again, typically with a 95% confidence level) because (a) while we know the average blood pressures differed between the two groups, we can only attribute, rather than absolutely prove, this effect to Drug A with a high degree of probability and (b) the clinical scientist did not examine all persons on earth in this trial. The confidence level rests upon the number of persons in the trial, the precision of the blood pressure measurements, and the variability of those measurements.
Although this example provides a simplified explanation, the point remains: Predictable events of high statistical probability, not certainty, establish scientific laws.(6)
Temporal
Scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws exist in the present moment and must be changed upon collection of contrary, i.e., falsification, data. Time dependency, therefore, characterizes the findings and conclusions of science. A common example illustrates this point: In the past, tobacco inhalation was not considered harmful to the health of a the majority of smokers; however, based upon current data, we now understand the deleterious effects of tobacco. The temporal nature of scientific conclusions perplexes, even frustrates, many non-scientists who wish for certainty at all times.
Self-correcting
By its very nature, science is remarkably self-correcting. If errors, intentional or unintentional arise in science, the scientific method eventually will reveal and correct them. This self-correcting characteristic explains in part why scientists consider reproducibility a requisite feature in assessing scientific conclusions.
Devoid of ethical, moral, religious, or mystical content
Science deals only with objective data that can be quantified. For example, because reliable scientific data cannot be obtained, science will not deal with what existed prior to the initial act of creation. Similarly, science will not add God, as creator, to any explanation of how life began and changes over time. No reason exists to write divine influence into any equation, hypothesis, theory, or scientific law. We may understand this point by looking at a straightforward example, a physical, chemical, or biochemical process that combines A with B to yield C, written in shorthand as:
A + B = C
Once we add in conditions for temperature, pressure, catalysts, etc., the equation thoroughly defines the process. It would be irrational to say something like, If God isn’t included, the transformation from A and B to C cannot occur because we can identify all the parameters necessary for the reaction to take place without putting God into the equation. Importantly from the perspective of science, unexplained phenomena do not serve as “proofs” of God’s existence and miraculous power but, rather, pose fertile areas for future scientific research.
A PERSONAL ACCOMMODATION
How do Judeo-Christian scientists reconcile the characteristics of science, particularly its refusal to include God, with religious principles? I can only offer my own accommodation. I previously stated that I was born into and have remained within the Community of Believers. I also am a trained scientist, with a doctorate in Biochemistry, who spent twenty years in basic biomedical research in laboratory settings and another twenty years working as a clinical scientist in the pharmaceutical industry. I experienced no great difficulty in reconciling my religious proclivities with my scientific career because, at the expense of repetition, I understood the differences in focus: Who, what, where, and why for Judeo-Christianity versus when and how for science. Thus, separate foci, investigative tools, and evaluative parameters produce separate but complementary answers about creation.
In this context, I am often asked, “Do you believe in prayer, do you pray in the laboratory?” The answers are “yes” and “yes”. I accept that prayer may be our natural status or primary method of communion with God; however, I would never pray for the results of my experiments come out in a specific way. Such a prayer fundamentally violates God’s natural laws, attempts to manipulate God, and denigrates human curiosity and intellect. On the other hand, I often prayed for the inspiration to design my experiments and to interpret the results in a logical fashion that would illuminate some aspect of God’s creation.
REFERENCES
1 Chapter 1
2 The Genesis descriptor, In the beginning, does not specify how long in the past the universe began.
3 Information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment, as opposed to suppositions. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company.
4 I employ the following definitions: Rational or empirical - information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment; Non-rational – information deemed to be valid even if outside the realm of rationality (An example would be the phenomenon of falling in love.); and Irrational – propositions that negate logic and reason, which have no place in science or religion (the idea that planets and stars influence our fate, the benevolent powers of crystals, the fallacy that we can communicate with the dead, and that God manipulates the minutia of the universe through violation of natural laws).
5 A legal pharmaceutical agent rather than an illegal substance.
6 The basic uncertainty inherent in science will be addressed again in Chapter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)