Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 6)

Over the past several blog posts, I have been in a series on thinking about science biblical and consistently as a Christian. The previous post summarized the first four posts, so you can head back there fore that summary. It also began us on the journey of moving forward, using the biblical view of science that we talked about from Scripture to learn how to live in a world like ours, which puts a great deal of weight on science. To use the analogy that I have been using in this series, we started to put "walls" and a "roof" on the "foundation" and "framework" of the intellectual houses we are building, and we are going to continue to do that in this post. 

At the end of the last post, we talked about mutual correction: the idea that proper interpretations of scientific data can help correct misinterpretations of Scripture and proper interpretations of Scripture can help correct misinterpretations of scientific data. And, I left that post with a question I was asked by a student, which is quite relevant: "How can I know where I should stand firm with my theology no matter what a scientist says and how can I know where I can perhaps let their theories alter my interpretation of Scripture?" That is a good place to pick back up the topic of moving forward to learn how to live in our day and age with this biblical view of science. 

So, how can we know where to stand firm with theology and where we can perhaps let a scientific theory affect our interpretation of Scripture? Well, we will get into this in more detail below when I will give what I think is a helpful method for handling apparent conflicts between science and Scripture, but there are few things that can be said here that should help with this question: 

1. First, you and I should never make that determination alone. Scripture is one of God's great gifts to the Church as a whole and we interpret it as a community. So, seek help from others by talking to a pastor, campus minister, Christian friends, reading books, etc. Do not try to make the determination by yourself. Sometimes you might end up disagreeing with some of the people with whom you discuss the issue, but the mere fact that you do it together will help keep you from gross error and keep you humble. 
2. Second, the creedal statements of Christianity are non-negotiable. The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Creed of Chalcedon put parameters around the Christian faith. They leave a lot of room when it comes to many, many doctrines, but they define Christianity in its outermost limits. If we stray beyond the theology of those creeds, then we have strayed beyond Christianity. Any statement of a scientist that attempts to overthrow a statement of those creeds--like God being the maker of heaven and earth, from the Apostles Creed--is just wrong. Stand firm on them. (By the way, this does not mean we do not need to know how to defend these creedal statements to non-believers, for we should be able to give the reason for the hope they give Christians, but it does mean we cannot budge on them. If we do, we do not have Christianity anymore and therefore there is nothing to defend.)
3. Take into account the great confessions of Church history. These things are not infallible like the Bible itself, but they are great statements of theology that have stood the test of time. They have not been around as long as the creeds, but they still have a lot to teach us and we should not just haphazardly dismiss them. For example, I, as a PCA teaching elder, am bound by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Catechisms. I can differ from them slightly, which I do in a few places, but even there I do not do that alone. My presbytery, which is the other teaching elders in my local geographic area, corrects me if I go too far in my differences from the confessions. In the next post, I will give some resources I recommend, and in it I will put links to the historic Reformed confessions that are still quite helpful here.
4. Finally, Do not jump to any conclusions one way or another right way, but pray a lot, study a lot, and talk a lot to other Christians.

Now, in what I have said here and in the previous post, let us not forget the mutual correction of science and Scripture. Scripture properly interpreted can also correct scientific theories where they misinterpret nature. Scripture does not give a lot of detail about most of the areas that scientists study, but where it does give details, they are details that are from God, have His authority, and provide interpretive parameters or corrections for scientific theories. One example of this might be scientific theories that attempt to claim that humans and animals have really no substantial difference other than cognitive abilities. Some scientists attempt to claim that animals are just as valuable as humans because the only difference between us is how smart we are. That, of course, comes from their interpretation of the evidence based on the assumption that naturalism and evolution are indisputable facts, which they are not. The Bible can help correct this error by pointing out that humans are made in God's image, while animals are not. God may have used a lot of the same building blocks to make humans as He did to make animals, but that does not mean He did not endow humans with a natural value and dignity that far surpasses animals. Furthermore, God gave dominion over animals to humans, thus further defining human value far above animal value. Now, that does not mean we can just abuse animals, but it does mean that animal life is not even close to being as equally valuable as human life.

Understanding how scientific data can help us correct a misinterpretation of Scripture and Scripture can help us correct misinterpretations of scientific data (mutual correction) is one way that we start putting "walls" and a "roof" on our intellectual and spiritual houses. The last thing we need to discuss is how to handle apparent conflicts when they arise because they will arise, and we need to know how to deal with them wisely. This will also help us put "walls" and a "roof" on our house. 

So, how do we handle them? Well, let me say upfront that there is probably more than one "right" way to handle these things. What I am about to give you is a method I have found helpful and others have found helpful too. It is not foolproof, for nothing is, but I think it can help you make your "houses" livable enough to help you live confidently and comfortably as a Christian in our day and age.

1. Remember what the biblical view of nature and Scripture is: Remember, as we learned in the previous posts, God is the author of both books, as we talked about yesterday, so this conflict that arises is only apparent; it is not real. Now, sometimes it may take a lot of work to figure out which book is being interpreted incorrectly and how to think about them properly, but while we work on that, we can rest in this truth. And, rest keeps us from anxiety, which helps us think more clearly about the issue. Christians have nothing to fear from scientific research because the scientist is researching God's domain--God's book. I meet many Christians who are afraid of science, but it is a tool God has given us to discover truth from His universe, so we have nothing to fear from it. 
2. Remember the world in which we live, and do not be surprised: As we discussed in part four, we should expect there to be cases where a scientific theory appears to conflict with our interpretations of Scripture. Many scientists are interpreting the data from the worldview of naturalism, which does conflict with Scripture's theistic worldview, and, as we have talked about a lot, we are simply fallible beings, so we make mistakes. Because of those things, we know apparent conflicts will arise. A biblical view of science tells us to expect this, so do not be shocked when they come. Shock only increases our anxiety of these issues, which, again, clouds our ability to think through them, but if we can look at it and say, "Huh, that's odd, but it doesn't really surprise me that they might think that," then we will remain calm enough to think through the issue biblically and rationally.
3. Remember not to jump to any conclusions too quickly: A biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that either our interpretation of Scripture or the scientist's interpretation of nature is incorrect or both, and we need to be humble enough to jump to any conclusions before we have thought it through. 
4. Check the source and wait: Things that come up in popular media via news, blogs, books, etc. all have a source behind them that points to the scientific research, and very often claims in the popular media are either reported incorrectly, too early, or are overturned by further scientific research. For example, here as some things to think about:
1. When you read something in the news, did it come from a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal like Science, Nature, or The Astrophysical Journal or did it come from something someone present at a conference? There can be a big difference in the reliability of the data. At conferences, researches often share raw, infant ideas that can range from Nobel prize concepts to junk and dead ends. Sometimes unpublished, un-peer-reviewed claims are portrayed as scientific fact by the media when even the researchers would not say that. Whenever I presented a paper at a conference, I cringed when I saw journalists sitting on the front row because I new generally that they would not understand what is going on or report it as fact when it was not. Now, luckily for me, my research was not really important enough for them to report, but it does happen often. Check to see if the source is a journal or something less reliable like a conference. 
2. If you have the ability, check out the source yourself. Even if it comes from a journal article, I have seen several occasions where the author was not saying anything close to what the news article claimed. If you do not have access to the journal through a university or a friend, then see if you can find someone who does. There are great ministries on that can help you think through these things here. One I really like is called Reasons to Believe. Email and ask them. They may have a resource that can help you or they may plan to comment on it. I would not mind helping you either, though I would be a distant second to the brilliant men and women at RTB, but feel free to ask me. 
3. And, remember to wait. Stuff in the best journals is still debatable, and further research may change the claim. For example, does anyone remember the fossil Ida that was introduced back in 2009? It was claimed to be a "missing link" that would totally change the way scientists view human evolution and would solidify the theory of evolution. It was introduced with a huge media circus and got so much hype that even Google dedicated a logo to it. Well, after several months, other papers started coming out questioning how helpful the fossil really was, and eventually the scientists who introduced it had to admit that their claims were far overblown. Just waiting would have shown many stressed-out Christians that this "discovery" does not really change anything at all and does not solidify anything with Darwinian evolution. 
4. So, check the source and wait. And, waiting can be done very easily with Google's handy "Google alerts" tool. If you are concerned about an apparent conflict, create a Google alert that will send the most recent information your way without you having to go looking for it, and then see what comes up. 
5. Attempt to separate the data from the interpretation of the data: Again, a biblical view of science reminds us that science is a tool that produces data and then that data is interpreted within a worldview. The data itself will not conflict with Scripture if it is properly extracted and recorded, but the interpretation might easily conflict because it might come from a scientists whose worldview is naturalism. But, if we can separate the data from the interpretation, then we can take a clear look at it and see how it fits within Scripture. Sometimes a biblical interpretation will look almost identical to the original; other times there will be significant differences. Now, this may take a lot of time and discussion with colleagues, friends, or consulting books or ministries that help Christians with apologetics, but if we really believe God wrote the books of nature and Scripture, then we know the data will fit within a biblical model, we just have to do the work of separation and interpretation within a biblical worldview. If you want an example of this, check out my posts on Adam and Eve here, here (this one especially illustrates this point), here, and here.
6. Remember to consider your interpretation of Scripture as well: In these apparent conflicts our goal is not to prove ourselves right (at least it should not be). Our goal should be to discover God's truth in order to bring Him glory. While we have considered so far how to think about the scientific side of the apparent controversy, we cannot skip over the possibility that the error may be on the theological side. We need to examine our exegesis of the Scripture passages that address the issue, we need to consult others like a pastor or campus minister, we need to do some reading on the subject, and we need to be as certain as we can be that the error is not in our interpretation of Scripture. And, like with the scientific research, sometimes this takes time. Sometimes we have to consider a number of different views before we can try to determine which seems the most faithful to God's revelation in Scripture and in nature. But, if we are resting in a biblical view of science and Scripture, we can take the time without becoming anxious because know there is a resolution, even if we cannot find it right away. 
7. Strive to be humble: Honestly, this is contradiction in terms because one cannot "strive" to be humble, but what I mean is that in this whole process, we must remember that we are just as fallible, biased, and sinful as the most hardened, virulent "new atheist." The only difference between us and them is that we have God's grace, forgiveness, salvation, and Holy Spirit (not from anything in us but as a gift so no man can boast, Eph. 2:8-9). The only reason that you and I understand and believe the Scriptures is the Spirit's illumination (1 Co. 2:9-12), therefore we need to be humble when responding to critics, evaluating someone's work, or discussing apparent conflicts with others.
8. Do not go it alone: I have already said this several times, but this is not something we need to be trying to do alone. We need the wisdom of the Christian community. We need friends, family, campus ministers, pastors, etc. to help us think through these things. Some of the people we consult might not be helpful in the pursuit of truth but some probably will be, and even if we end up not agreeing with them, their viewpoint will help us refine our own. 
9. Pray: When Nehemiah stood before the King Artaxerxes to request permission to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls around the new Temple, he was in a tenuous spot. He could have been killed for his request. In 2:4 the king asks the question "What are you requesting?" and before Nehemiah responded, Scripture tells us that he prayed. In that moment--a second or two--he prayed for wisdom and God gave it to him. We need to pray for wisdom when trying to figure these things out. Sometimes they are very difficult. We need to pray that God will help us sort out the truth from interpretation, and we need to pray that He will help us come to a proper understanding of both His Word and His world, for His glory and our good. 
10. Remember that God is still God and Jesus is still coming back: Sometimes you will not be able to figure it out, even after having studied the scientific data and Scripture. Sometimes you will not be able to figure out which interpretation is in error. Even the best scholars and academics have to say, "I don't know" sometimes. Hopefully these times will be rare, but they will probably happen every now and then. In those times, a biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that just because we cannot figure it out does not mean there is no solution, and we need to be humble enough to admit that. The issue might be a paradox, but a biblical view of science and Scripture reminds us that it is not a contradiction, so we can rest in that truth. Do you know the difference between a paradox and a contradiction?
1. A paradox is something that seems contradictory but actually is not. The reason it seems contradictory is because we cannot find the solution, but we know there is one. Every theology and scientific model has its share of paradoxes. For example, in theology, Scripture upholds the sovereignty of God over everything, including man's salvation, and Scripture also upholds human responsibility for their actions. Are those contradictory? No, because God teaches them both and cannot contradict Himself. There is a solution to how those two work together, but God has chosen not to share it with us. When Paul considers this paradox, he does not even try to pose a resolution but simply says, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (cf. Ro. 9), and if it was too much for Paul writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, it is too much for you and I. Another example from the sciences would be wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics. This is the evidence from nature, that a subatomic particle exhibits both particle and wave properties. How can something be a point in space and also a wave at the same time? No one really knows, but we do know that it happens. It is a paradox because there is a solution, we do not have it yet.
2. A contradiction means there is no possible solution. It is like saying 1+1=2 and 1+1=5. There is no way to reconcile those statements, so they are contradictory.
3. A biblical view of science and Scripture tells us that God is the author of both books, so there is no contradiction, but sometimes paradoxes will arise because either God has chosen not to give us all the information we need to solve the problem or we just have not figured it out yet. We live in a fallen world full of sinful people who do not know everything and make mistakes, so sometimes the solution is beyond you and me, and that is okay because God is still God and Jesus is still coming back. I hate not being able to figure something out as much as the next guy, but sometimes (rarely but sometimes) we need to admit it is too much for us, trust God, and go get a milkshake.

Alright, that is my general "method" for handling apparent conflicts between what scientists say and what we read in Scripture. Hopefully you will find it helpful enough to help you put "walls" and a "roof" on your intellectual and spiritual "house." This also brings my discussion of a biblical view of science to a close. Certainly there is more that can be written on this topic, but I hope and pray this will give you a solid start as you consider the tool of science. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have or check out my "science" tag for stuff I have written on various subjects. 

In the next post, I will list out a number of resources that you might find helpful for various sub-topics of science and Christianity. It will not be an exhaustive list by any means, but it will give you enough material to keep you reading for a while. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 3)

In the past couple of posts I have been attempting to give Christians a framework for living as believers in a world that puts a great deal of weight on science, and what I have been trying to do is to help my Christian readers learn to think biblically about science and consistently as a Christian. I am using the analogy of building a house--I want to help you build an intellectual and spiritual house in which you can "live" as a Christian in our world. In the first two posts, we have started to do that by talking about God's revelation of Himself and His truth:

1. In the first post of this series, I defended the idea that all truth is God's truth, and in some fashion all truths point us to God, which is the concrete for our foundation in the metaphorical houses we are building. 
2. In the second post of this series, we looked at the Belgic Confession and saw that God reveals His truth and we discover it through the two "books" of nature and Scripture. From that I argued that God has revealed Himself infallibly in the books Scripture and nature, and since God is the author of both books there is no inherent contradiction between the two. When it comes to the house we are building, this is the foundation upon which we will build everything else.

At the end of the last post, however, I posed an objection that I think will likely come to mind when this foundation is laid: "Okay, you're saying there's no contradiction between the two, but I see contradictions in a number of areas." If you are thinking that, that is a good observation that points us in direction of the next biblical truth at which we will start to look today: human fallibility. (By fallibility, I just mean that humans are prone to make mistake because we are not perfect.) The first two posts were about God's revelation, and in this post and the next we will look at the topic of human fallibility and how understanding that helps us to think biblically about science and consistently as Christians. (And, hopefully if you are familiar with Internet memes, you get the relevance of the Picard picture.) By the way, this will also help us understand the nature of the apparent conflicts that we seem to see between "science and Christianity."

First, we need to talk about tools for understanding God's revelation in the books of nature and Scripture. When it comes to understanding the books of nature and Scripture, there are tools or processes that we use to discover the truth in them. In many cases, the actual teaching of Scripture--what God is actually revealing through it--does not just jump off the pages for us to receive as truth, and in most cases, the actual truth about our physical reality--what God is actually revealing through it--does not just jump up out of nature to us to receive as truth. In both cases, study must be done to get at the truth God is revealing through each of these books. And, we use tools in this study:

• For Scripture, the main tools are exegesis and interpretation. Exegesis is the study of a text to bring out its meaning--what God is actually teaching us through it. This is what we all do on some level when we read Scripture. Sometimes it might be as simple as reading the context of a verse or passage and then asking the question of what a particular statement means in the overall context of a story or teaching of Scripture. Sometimes it might be a rigorous, detailed study of a just a sentence or two by looking at the original languages, consulting commentaries, etc. Either way, when we attempt to get at the truth of the actual teaching of Scripture, we are using the tool of exegesis to give us the data. But, our study does not stop there. Then, once we think we understand the teaching of a passage, we have to interpret that bit of data for our lives based on the passage as well as how it fits with the rest of Scripture, and when we do that, we form theologies of Scripture. Through that process we attempt to find the truth God is actually teaching in the Bible. 
• For nature, the main tools are science and interpretation. Science can be defined simply as the systematic study of the natural universe in which we live through observation and experimentation. Again, we all do this at some times in our lives. Even my two-year-old son does this almost naturally. He learns about cause and effect, gravity, the states of objects, hot and cold, and many other things by trying it out. He takes a toy, stands it up, and then pushes it over, and from that he learns to intuit cause and effect and even a little bit about gravity. But, his research does not stop there. He then takes the toy somewhere else and repeats the experiment. And, what does he find? The same thing happens in a different place! Amazing! Even a two-year-old does low-level science. And, of course, science can take the form of formal, rigorous observation and experimentation in a lab, on a dig, or with a telescope. But, again, our study does not stop there. Our use of the tool of science gives us data, and then we have to interpret that data for our lives based on the laws of physics, our presupposed beliefs (which we will talk about in a later post), and other scientific theories, and when we do that, we form other theories or scientific models for understanding the universe. Through that process we attempt to find the truth God is actually teaching us in nature. 

When thinking about discovering truth in this way, we can see that the process in both cases is pretty much the same: we collect data (through exegesis or science) and we interpret data. And, the end of each is an attempt to understand truth.

Now, in talking about those tools we start to get a bit of the next biblical truth that builds on the foundation we laid in the first two posts. The study of nature and the study of Scripture are processes done by humans to get at the truth. Science and exegesis are the tools of that process, which give us data that we interpret. So, from this we must remember that properly speaking, science and Scripture, science and faith, science and religion, or however we entitle the alleged conflict, those things do not actually interact, per se, people do. The science of nature and the exegesis of Scripture no more interact than a hammer and a circular saw do. They are tools, and tools do not interact or conflict. But, people interact all the time. People who use these tools can run into conflict. And, with that, we begin to move in the direction of understanding the apparent conflicts we hear about between "science and Christianity."

Alright, so we said in the previous post that God's revelation through the books of nature and Scripture will never conflict, and today we have add to that by saying that the science and exegesis are tools we use for interpretation of these books to form theories or theologies, so these tools do not really interact; people do. So, knowing that, what do you think would be the nature of the apparent conflicts that we hear about between science and Scripture? The problem is not God's revelation in either book; they are both infallible (see the previous post). The problem is not the tools, for they are essentially neutral. The problem is the people. We are fallible people using tools to study and interpret God's infallible revelation. In fact, we could update our chart from the previous post a little more here:

	Special Revelation	General Revelation
Infallible:	God’s Word in Scripture	God’s Word in nature
Fallible:	Exegesis -> Interpretation -> Theology	Science -> Interpretation -> Theory

God's revelation exists in the top row. But, we humans live in the bottom row. Remembering this helps us to think biblically about science and Scripture. Scientific theories are not infallible like God's revelation in nature is. And, theological systems are not infallible like God's revelation in Scripture is.

Really what we are talking about here is the effects of the fall on our study of both nature and Scripture. Before the fall, man was sinless; so when Adam and Eve made an observation and interpretation of nature, it was one unsullied by sin that conformed to the truth of reality--the way things actually are. When Adam and Eve considered and interpreted something God said to them (i.e. His Word for them), it was untarnished by sin and conformed to His actual teaching. But, now that we are sinful men and women trying our best to study both Scripture and nature, our minds, hearts, and even our actions are tainted by sin. Sin makes us fallible in many ways. So, when we come across apparent conflicts, there are really three options for where the problem/mistake lies:

1. Sometimes we make mistakes in our exegesis and interpretation of Scripture. We as Christians must be humble enough to admit this because it is simply a fact of life. There would not be debates over the length of days in Ge. 1, between Reformed and Arminians, about the end times, or about many other theological subjects if we were not sinful, fallible humans. 
2. Sometimes we make mistakes in our scientific research and interpretation of nature. We as Christians need to understand this and remember this when a scientific theory appears to conflict with the Bible. The men and women who propose those theories are fallible, sinful humans as well.
3. Sometimes (maybe even often) we make mistakes in our study of both books. Sometimes we have interpreted our Scriptures incorrectly and we have interpreted the data from science incorrectly, and therefore a conflict may arise from that. (In fact, I would argue that this is probably the case more often than not.)

Now, at this point, we need to caution ourselves and be humble enough to remember that just because an apparent conflict arises does not mean we should automatically jump to the conclusion that the scientist is the one in error. We also do not automatically jump to the conclusion that our theology is in error. We can see sad examples of both knee-jerk reactions in Christian history, and maybe a couple historical examples of this would be helpful here. Here are two opposite examples:

Take the example from Christian history of the geocentric model of our solar system--i.e. the earth being the center of our solar system--vs the heliocentric model of our solar system--i.e. the sun being the center of the solar system. For hundreds of years both Christians and non-Christian scientists believed that the earth was the center of our solar system. Ever since Ptolemy of the second century AD, it was held as incontrovertible by all "thinking" people that the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun moved around it. This view was held by scientists because of simple observations of the world around us (think about it, even today we still use phrases like "the sun moving across the sky"). It was also held by Christians because it was thought to be the plain implication of Scriptures that talk about the sun's movement, like Jos. 10 where it specifically says, "the sun stood still, and the moon stopped." Then, Copernicus came along in the sixteenth century and published his heliocentric model. Now, at the time, his model was not generally accepted by either scientists or Christians. And, the two great reformers--Luther and Calvin--had some strong words for Copernicus. Luther wrote in his Table Talk booklet in 1539:

There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth [Jos. 10:12].

Calvin was less direct towards Copernicus, but he did make an indirect statement that was strong in a sermon on 1 Co. where he warns against those who say "that the sun does not move and that it is the earth that moves." And, he calls them "stark raving mad" and demon possessed.

I do not know of anyone today who still tries to claim that the earth is the center of the solar system, but Luther and Calvin were convinced that the their interpretation of Jos. 10:12 and other Scriptures was infallible and therefore Copernicus was obviously wrong. Now, I am not saying they should have immediately overturned 1500 years of interpretation, for even the scientists of their day did not agree with Copernicus, yet this example does show they jumped to a conclusion too quickly. Brilliant men like Luther and Calvin immediately jumped to the conclusion that the scientist was wrong, not being humble enough at this point even to consider the other possibility. We need not to make the same mistake. Over time both scientists and Christians realized that Copernicus was right for the most part. But, it took a while. Even with Galileo, the controversy did not end. It really did not end in the sciences until Newton--about 200 years after Copernicus.

An alternate example might be Steady-State cosmology. In the early twentieth century because of conclusions from general relativity, cosmologists knew that the universe could not be static, so they postulated that the universe had no beginning but that matter was being continuously created as the universe expanded. As silly as that sounds to us today, this theory was very popular until the 1960's when observations of the universe showed it was simply untenable. In the early twentieth century, this theory gave atheist scientists intellectual reason to reject God's creation of the universe in any fashion because their model said the universe had no beginning (so it needed no Beginner), so we can understand why they latched onto it. Yet, a quick survey of Christian journals in the 1930's and 40's will find dozens of papers arguing that Christians must accept Steady-State cosmology and treat Ge. 1 like an allegory, which is just a story or poem that has no historical basis but is written simply to teach a moral truth. Well, with the rise of Big Bang cosmology, scientists had to admit they were wrong about Steady-State cosmology and that the universe did have a beginning (which was a hard thing for an atheist to admit), and suddenly all those Christians who said we had to agree with Steady-State cosmology had egg on their faces. Here, we have an opposite example: Christians who assumed theologians had to be wrong, and they regretted it.

The effects of the fall are a biblical reality that should remind Christians not to jump to any knee-jerk reaction about the latest scientific theories that appear to conflict with common interpretations of Scripture. We will talk more about how to handle them later, but for now, we need to remember that both theologians and scientists are fallible, and this gives us another key component to our biblical view of science and our metaphorical houses: When apparent conflicts arise, it is not because science and the Bible are in conflict but because we human beings are either interpreting Scripture wrongly, the scientific data wrongly, or both wrongly. This is the framework for our house that we are building. Sometimes what seems like a conflict with Scripture from the sciences is actually a truth from God's revelation in nature that helps us refine our interpretation of God's revelation in Scripture, as the example of Luther and Calvin shows us. Sometimes what seems like a conflict with Scripture from the sciences is actually just a popular theory that may be corrected later with better observations of nature. Sometimes it might be a combination of both.

Now, when I say science and Scripture do not conflict, people do; and when I say apparent contradictions are a result of fallible humans interpreting Scripture wrongly, the scientific data wrongly, or both wrongly, I am telling you the nature of the apparent conflicts. But, what gives rise to these conflicts? From where do they come? That is the source of the clashes, and it is a clash of worldviews. But, this post is long enough, so we will pick that up next week in part four.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Two Beautiful Books: Science... err... correction: Nature and Scripture (Part 2)

In my last post, I began a series on science and Scripture to teach a biblical view of science that will hopefully be helpful to Christians and non who read this blog. My goal in this series (and in the RUF seminar that gave birth to it) is not to tell you what to think on sub-topics of science and Christianity like the age of the earth, big bang cosmology, etc. My goal is to teach you how to think biblically and consistently about science and Scripture. In the first post, I used the analogy of building a house in which a Christian can "live" in a culture that puts a great deal of weight on science. I hope to help you build that metaphorical house. It is not going to be a perfect house--the walls may have few drafts and the roof a few leaks--but it will be, I pray, sufficient for you to live as a Christian in science or engineering vocations or just in our culture in general.

In the previous post, I started to talk about God's revelation because we need to start there to think biblically about science, and I argued that all truth is God's truth. This is the concrete for the foundation of our metaphorical house. And, I ended that post with the question: How does God reveal--communicate--His truth or how do we discover His truth? And, answering this question will help us to think biblically about science and the "conflict" we hear about between science and Christianity. So, we will pick back up there today.

Here, we get some help from a Reformed document that is not from the PCA tradition, of which I and RUF (the original setting of these talks) are a part, but one that is still used in the Dutch Reformed tradition: the Belgic Confession. Article 2 of this confession answers the question of the means by which we know God and His truth:

First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.… Second, he makes himself known to us more openly [i.e. that is in much more detail] by his holy and divine Word [i.e. the Bible], as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

So, as you might have guessed, this is where the title of this series originated. Here, the Belgic Confession tells us that there are two primary ways that God reveals His truth to us, and those two ways can both be thought of as beautiful books: nature and Scripture. Now, Scripture is a literal book, and insofar as our study of it is faithful to its actual teaching--what God is actually revealing through it--we learn God's truth from it. Yet, I really love how this confession tells us that nature--and by that I mean the universe in which we live that's made up of energy and matter--is like a book (in a figurative sense) whose author is also God and in which He has written His truth. And, like with Scripture, insofar as our study of it--our scientific research--is faithful to nature's actual reality, we learn God's truth from it. These two categories of nature and Scripture as books through which God reveals His truth are very helpful for thinking biblically about science.

Now, in theological terms, what we are talking about here is God's general revelation through nature and His special revelation through Scripture (for more information on these topics than what I give below, see Berkhof's Systematic Theology on this subject).

Those are theological names for these books that the Belgic Confession describes:

• General revelation is the book of nature, and it is God's revelation--His communication--of His general truth about Himself and this universe to all mankind. This is, again, where Ro. 1:20 comes in, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." That verse is why the Belgic Confession says "that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God." And, of course, this teaching is all over Scripture. Ps. 19:1-4, for example, says:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
   and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech,
   and night to night reveals knowledge [i.e. His truth].
3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
   whose voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out through all the earth,
   and their words to the end of the world.

God speaks generally His truth to all mankind through the book of nature.

• Special revelation is the book of Scripture--the Bible--and it is God's revelation--His communication--of His special and detailed truth about Himself and His plan of redemption for mankind. This is, again, why the Belgic Confession says that in the book of Scripture God "makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own."

The WCF, which is the statement of faith for my and RUF's denomination (the PCA), balances both these books in its very first statement:

Although the light of nature [or we might say, "book of nature"], and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord… to reveal Himself… in the Holy Scripture.

So, God gives us truth through the two beautiful books of special and general revelation--Scripture and nature, respectively. General revelation reveals Him and His truth broadly, and special revelation gives us the detailed truth necessary for becoming a Christian and living the Christian life.

Now, so far, I have said a lot about God's revelation of truth without specifically referencing the sciences, and you might be thinking, "What does this have to do with science and faith?" Well, now we have enough data to make a biblical, foundational assertion, which is absolutely crucial for thinking biblically about science and Scripture: If God is the author of the book of Scripture--special revelation--and if God is the author of the book of nature--general revelation--then when it comes to the truth revealed in each and their relationship to each other, there is no inherent contradiction ever. Let me say that again because this is incredibly important for thinking biblically about science: Since God is the author of both books--nature and Scripture--there is never an inherent contradiction between the truths that come from Scripture and the truths that come from nature because God is the source of both. There cannot be inherent contradictions because God wrote both books, and God cannot contradict Himself. That is a fundamental truth about God that is laid out in Scripture in places like He. 6:18 that says, "It is impossible for God to lie" and Nu. 23:19 that says, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind." You and I are fallible, sinful beings, so we can lie and contradict ourselves. We do so on a regular basis. But, as Moses says in Nu. 23:19, God is not like us: He does not lie; He cannot contradict Himself.

So, if He reveals Himself and His truth in two different books, those two different books will be inherently, perfectly harmonized--without any contradiction. Have you heard the term "presupposition"? A presupposition is a belief that we assume before we begin any course of action. Well, this is a biblical presupposition that lies beneath everything we will say from here on out when it comes to science and Scripture. It is a presupposition that I would argue Christians must hold before we can approach science biblically.

Now, building off what I just said, when I was giving this talk to college students at RUF's Summer Conference, I asked a couple of questions for them to answer in the affirmative by raising their hands. The first question I asked was "How many of you believe that God's revelation in Scripture is infallible--the revelation itself makes no mistakes in how it presents God's truth?" And, most of them raised their hand (and as I said in the previous post, this is presupposition I hold but do not have the time to prove to you now). So, think about how you would answer that question.... Then, I asked them another question: "How many of you believe that God's revelation in nature is infallible?" And, this time, only a few raised their hands. So, again, think about how you would answer that question.... I then asked if anyone would tell me why they did not raise their hand for the second question. And, the answer I got was concern about granting infallibility to "things science says," and that is a legitimate concern, but that is not actually the question I asked. I did not ask if scientific theories about nature are infallible but if God's revelation is infallible. What I am talking about God's revelation of truth, not man's interpretation of that revelation. Since God is the one who is doing the revealing in both nature and Scripture, in both places, the revelation itself is infallible because God Himself is infallible. God cannot reveal Himself in a mistaken, fallacious way. So, if we were going to write this down in a chart form, it would look like this:

	Special Revelation	General Revelation
Infallible:	God’s Word in Scripture	God’s Word in nature

Now, a good question was asked at this point by some of the students: "What about how nature is fallen now because of Adam and Eve's first sin (cf. Ge. 3:13-19)? Doesn't that make the revelation in nature fallible?" That is a very good question to ask because it shows that one is starting to think biblically about nature and Scripture, but I would argue that is not consistent with Scripture's witness or a biblical view of God’s oversight over His revelation for a couple of reasons:

1. First, in Ro. 1:20 Paul says "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." Paul draws a line from the creation of the world (before the fall) to now and tells us that God's revelation of Himself is the same from then until now: infallible, so much so that man is without excuse before Him. 
2. Second, God's special revelation was written down in the Bible inerrantly and infallibly by fallible men because the Holy Spirit protected them from error. This illustrates how God can still reveal Himself infallibly through a fallible agent. Thus, I would conclude that God's revelation of Himself in nature is infallible.

This is part of the foundational presupposition (mentioned above) we must have to approach the relationship between science and Scripture biblically, and we could update that foundational presupposition with what we've just said: God has revealed Himself infallibly in the books Scripture and nature, and since God is the author of both books there is no inherent contradiction between the two. When it comes to the house we are building, this is the foundation upon which we will build everything else. 

If you do not have this foundational truth driving your thinking about science and Scripture, when you come across what appears to be a contradiction between the two, you may never resolve the conflict but simply let one win over the other without pursuing the truth in either. And, in my experience, there are two extremes that can result from that: either people abandon Christianity because they continually let the opinions of popular scientists take priority over Scripture, or people proverbially circle the wagons around their interpretation of Scripture and do damage to God's glory by misusing both Scripture and data from the scientific research to try to prove their interpretation is the only one possible. But, I think there is a more humble way to approach both, and this biblical truth lays the foundation; yet, we still have a lot to say about thinking about science biblically.

At this point, some of you out there might be thinking, "Okay, you're saying there's no contradiction between the two, but I see contradictions in a number of areas." If you are thinking that, that is a good observation that points us in direction of the next biblical truth that we need to take into account: human fallibility. But, this post is long enough right now, so that will be the subject of the next post in this series. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

Incomplete II

"One would need to possess complete knowledge and understanding about every complexity of a phenomenon before one could settle upon a unique and exhaustively complete explanation of every detail of the phenomenon. Since only God is omniscient, such an explanation will forever remain beyond the bounds of human knowledge. Another way to put it is that only God possesses absolute proof." ~ Hugh Ross

A few posts ago I presented a quote from John Frame about the limitations of logic. The above quote from Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe expresses a similar sentiment. The fact that only God possesses absolute proof and the knowledge necessary to create a flawless logical systems or models should humble us. We, and I am guilty of this often, often think we will eventually be able to prove anything absolutely whether it be scientific or theological, but that will never be the case. Our knowledge will never be complete and therefore our proofs will never be either. This does not mean we should pursue knowledge through various disciplines, but it does mean that we should kneel in humility before an Absolute God and be teachable so that we do not pridefully overlook our limitations.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Incomplete

"[Logical systems] are fallible systems, human systems. They may not be equated with the mind of God. God's logic is divine; human logic is not." ~ John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God

I think it would do all of us good to remember this very important fact. We humans are so proud of what we have accomplished and what we can do, which is not in itself wrong, but we begin to become over confident and think that "science and reason [logic] can accomplish everything" which is arrogant of us to believe. We have very incomplete knowledge of our universe, not to mention our incomplete knowledge of the spiritual realm. We do not know what we do not know. By that I mean that we cannot begin to take into consideration situations, circumstances, and environments we do not even know exist, so how can we possibly claim that science and reason/logic can accomplish everything? Science is constantly being revised because of newly discovered data and refined techniques. Einstein trumps Newton and now even Einstein is being questioned.

God's logic/reasoning systems, however, are of a different nature. God, by definition, is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is also the only Being with complete knowledge of all things. Complete knowledge coupled with a perfect Mind leads to complete, perfect, and divine systems.

We need to search, study, and investigate, but we need to also acknowledge our limitations before a limitless God.

By His Grace,
Taylor