It is election time, and that, of course, brings a lot of debate, media articles, and (to be straightforward) distraction from other important issues going on in the world. Now, I am not saying politics is not important, but I am saying that sometimes we can get so caught up in candidates, debates, and primaries that we miss other events going on in our world that have equally profound and far-reaching ramifications for humanity (if not surpassing importance).
Yes, you read that correctly: the Francis Crick Institute is going to begin modifying the genome of human embryos with the expressed goal of "understanding the process by which embryos develop... that will help identify causes of miscarriage and infertility." Proponents of the research say that it could help scientists to understand why there is a such a high rate miscarriages, how to eliminate certain diseases, and how to treat infertility more effectively. So, you might ask, "Why is that an issue? Who could be against that?" Well, when we are talking about tampering with the human genome itself, such an endeavor has far-reaching implications that provide quite good reasons to be against it.
I am, of course, not the first person to point this out. In fact, there has been a widespread outcry against these efforts by scientists across the world, calling for a worldwide moratorium on the engineering of the human genome. In an open letter by the Center for Genetics and Society, dozens of scientists across the globe call for such research to be stopped before it does irreparable damage to the human race:
Some suggest that germline modification be allowed for therapeutic purposes but not for “enhancement.” But the distinction between these applications is subjective and would be difficult or impossible to implement as policy. Permitting germline intervention for any intended purpose would open the door to an era of high-tech consumer eugenics in which affluent parents seek to choose socially preferred qualities for their children. At a time when economic inequality is surging worldwide, heritable genetic modification could inscribe new forms of inequality and discrimination onto the human genome.
For these reasons, several dozen countries, including most of those with highly developed biotechnology sectors, have explicitly banned human germline modification. The Council of Europe’s binding 1997 Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine also prohibits it. Numerous opinion surveys show that the great majority of Americans and others worldwide believe that heritable genetic modification should be prohibited.
While we are encouraged by efforts on the part of scientific bodies to move the process of deliberation about acceptable uses of gene editing forward, we are concerned that much of the focus has been on technical issues of safety (implying that if it were safe it would be acceptable), rather than on broader ethical and social implications. We strongly believe that the National Academies’ initiative and international meeting should be considered a very early step of a broadly inclusive program of public discussion. Any recommendations emerging from the meeting or the initiative should make this clear.
In sum, there is no justification for, and many arguments against, human germline modification for reproductive purposes. We call for a prohibition on such germline modification and a robust and broadly inclusive discussion on the socially responsible uses of this and other emerging genetic technologies. (Emphasis added...)
Check out the open letter yourself to look at the signatures and who is arguing that this is far too dangerous for the human race to attempt. It is not just me or other Christians (and we will get into my reasons in a moment) but scientists from many religious worldviews across the globe. Here we have a group of scientists who understand that just because we have the technology and ability to do something does not mean we should do it. We must think about the implications of our scientific research and weigh that against what good (if any) it might accomplish. In an imperfect world like ours, there are times when we must not pursue some scientific research because whatever good it might accomplish cannot be justified and is far outweighed by the loss of human life, the destruction of human dignity, the unknown affects on the human race, and the implications for human society.
As I alluded above, many Christians have also discussed the ethics and dangers of such an endeavor. In this article, Church and Culture discusses some of the ethical implications of such research. In this one, Anjeanette "AJ" Roberts of Reasons to Believe discusses the implications the image of God has on such research as well as the unknown effects on humanity that such tampering could have. Both of them are worth reading along with the open letter mentioned above, but I would like to add another ethical implication that I have yet to hear discussed: the ethical implications of the process of this scientific research itself.
In a nutshell, this process of research will "deactivate genes in leftover embryos from IVF clinics to see if it hinders development." Basically, using CRISPR, the scientists will deactivate genes, allow the embryo to develop, and then see what happens--how the deactivation of that gene helps or hinders the overall development of the human embyro. (Currently, the growth process of the embryo will take place in a lab because it is not yet legal to insert a genetically modified embryo in a human host. Not yet, but that is the next step.) They must use this process because at our current level of technology, it is possible to isolate certain genes that affect or contribute to certain diseases, defects, or developmental stages, but it is generally not known how those genes function in the overall development of a human or affect the overall development of our genome (i.e. genetic makeup). Genes are not so isolated that one gene only has one function. How particular genes contribute to the overall gene expression of a being is largely unpredictable. So, just because a research group might know what genes affect certain developmental outcomes, they do not necessarily know how those genes affect the development of the entire genome of the individual. That means this research must proceed by making targeted changes to the genome of an embryo and then seeing whether or not the embryo develops properly with the desired outcome.
Now, think about that process as a whole: they will deactivate genes, allow the human embryo to develop (i.e. grow), and see what happens. What we are talking about here is taking a human life (a human person from conception, as I argue here), modifying its genome, and then seeing if it dies or not, develops healthily or not, develops unforeseen side effects or not, etc. It is akin to taking a baby, cutting off its leg, and then saying, "Now, let's what happens as it grows." This research goes even beyond current embryonic stem cell research (which is also a deplorable destruction of human life) because it doesn't just take cells from an embryo killing it in the process; it modifies the embryo and allows it to live on just to see how the modification affects its life. This is slavery at its worst, the likes of which our world, unfortunately, has seen in the past. Perhaps a few historical examples will help put some perspective on this research.
During WWII, the Nazi's conducted experiments on Jews at many of their concentration camps, but the majority were performed at Auschwitz and Ravensbrueck. If you have not read about these experiments, they are not for the faint of heart. Nazi doctors performed all sorts of horrific experiments on those who were considered "untermensch" ("sub-human") to see what would happen and/or to see if they could develop medical treatments that would be beneficial to German soldiers. And, after WWII, at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, these doctors were tried and convicted of war crimes against humanity. What they did was absolutely deplorable and deserved to be tried as crimes against humanity, but it is not ethically different from what HFEA has just granted the Francis Crick Institute permission to do: experiment on humans to see what will happen and/or try to development medical treatments that will be beneficial for other humans. Just because these humans are less developed physically they the rest of us, just because they do not have a voice to cry out for help, just because they do not have the ability to try to flee the scientists does not mean they are any less human than you or me (cf. the SLED test for more detail on this).
Perhaps one more example from America history will help. Have you ever heard of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? American physicians studied about 600 black males in Alabama who had syphilis, and they told the men that they were getting "free medical care." What these doctors were really doing was refusing to treat their syphilis so that the doctors could study the progression of untreated syphilis in humans. They let these men suffer and die just to see what would happen--to see how syphilis would progress when untreated. This also was a gross and deplorable misuse of scientific research that cost the lives of hundreds of men, but, again, it is not ethically different from what HFEA has just granted the Francis Crick Institute permission to do.
If the Francis Crick Institute is allowed to continue its research or if others follow suit, then these "left over" human embryos from IVF will become a slave class in our world, kept alive simply for experimentation not unlike what the Nazis did in WWII or what happened in Tuskegee, AL. Yes, the researchers are trying to do good with their experiments, but that does not justify the process. The end does not justify the means--developing treatments for humans by taking human life or, indeed, altering human life and allowing it to develop to see what happens is unacceptable. The end of this research may have profound implications on the human race in the future that we cannot predict, as the above articles and letters show, but even the process of this research itself should be condemned by us.
I hope and pray the outcry of scientists across the globe will bring this research to an end soon, and perhaps this blog post will help in that process. May God have mercy on us for how we treat His images.
In the sermon of the next post, we will take a look at the first nine plagues that God unleashes on Egypt in order to drive Pharaoh to release His people. One thing that often comes up with the subject of the plagues of Ex. 7-12 is whether the plagues were divine intervention from God or just natural disasters that the Egyptians misinterpreted. Modern minds that want to deny any supernatural intervention in our universe have come up with all sorts of attempts to explain them naturally, but all of those attempts fail. I did not have time to go over that in the sermon that will be in the next post, so here we will look at why such attempts cannot explain the biblical data adequately.
First, we should note that in some of the miraculous events in Scripture God does use natural causes in supernatural ways. In some cases, God does appear to be using the laws of nature, but He uses them in a way that would be highly improbable or next to impossible without His divine intervention. Take, for example, the crossing of the Red Sea in Ex. 14. There the text tells us specifically how God divided the sea: "the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided." (v. 21) Do you see God's use of natural forces there? God used wind that blew all night long to divide the water and dry the ground. Now, technically that is possible given the right environmental factors, but the timing, magnitude, and duration of the wind makes it not logical to believe it happened merely by chance. To say it happened by chance, we would have to say that "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea" (v. 21) at just the right moment (and he knew to do that how?), we would have to say that the wind blew all night long at just the right magnitude and in just the right direction without varying at all (no lulls in the wind at all), and we would have to say that after all the Hebrews had made it through again "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea" (v. 27) at just the right moment when the wind stopped (again, he knew to do that how?) and the water came crashing down on the Egyptians. Such a sequence of perfectly timed events is really not possible with God's invention, even though He did use the forces of nature. Well, the same reasoning can apply to the plagues: even if there is a natural component to some or all of them, the timing, magnitude, and duration of events shows that the divine hand of God must be behind them.
Let's look at one of the most sophisticated attempts to explain the plagues naturally. Greta Hort published the best attempt to give natural explanations to all the plagues in "The Plagues of Egypt" in 1958 (in the German journal Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, pp. 48-59), and it is often still referenced by those who try to attribute the plagues to natural events. Her theory can be summarized as follows:
Massive flooding in the Abyssinian plateau upstream from Egypt washed red clay into the Nile, and that clay, combined with two particular types of algae, made the Nile appear "blood red." And, in the fish that died from the pollution of the Nile, anthrax bread, which comes into play in the successive plagues.
Frogs left the uninhabitable Nile, invading Egypt, but the frogs were infected with anthrax and so they soon died as well.
As floodwaters receded, the pools and dead frogs became a perfect breeding ground for mosquitoes (more likely than gnats) and flies, both of which were infected by anthrax as well.
The mosquitoes bit humans and animals, and animals consume the flies, so both became infected with anthrax as well--it killed the animals that ingested them and infected the skin of the humans that were bitten.
In the seventh plague, the hail was just an extreme weather condition that destroyed crops.
In the eighth plague, the locusts bred as a result of the extremely wet ground from the hail and rain.
Finally, the darkness was a sandstorm (which, Hort claims, is why Bible says in 10:21 that it could be "felt").
I hope that while simply reading through those, you can already see how they are thoroughly unconvincing unless you are really looking for a reason to deny supernatural involvement by God. Here is an article that shows the many scientific inaccuracies in this theory (like the types of algae, what animals anthrax can infect, etc.). But, as mentioned above, such an attempt to create a purely natural chain of events (that breaks down after plague six, by the way) cannot at all account for the timing, magnitude, and duration of the plagues, so we do not even need to dig deep into the details to show that this does not work (though the article linked above is still worth a read):
The Nile turned to blood "in the sight of Pharaoh" (7:20), i.e. not gradually from an upstream flow, and it was not just the Nile but "all the water in Egypt" (7:20) and "even in the vessels of wood and in the vessels of stone" (7:19). Did Moses go upstream, see the red water flowing, run quickly (at 80 years old) down to Pharaoh, grab his attention, and then claim it was a plague from God? How did it get in all the surface water everywhere in Egypt?
The frogs came at least a week later (7:25), which is a long time to tolerate an uninhabitable river. Furthermore, the frogs did not come out gradually, but the Nile "swarmed with frogs" (8:3) and those frogs were so numerous "covered the land of Egypt" (8:6) so that they were everywhere, even in kneading bowls and ovens (8:3). So, that many millions of frogs were just sitting on the bottom of the (uninhabitable) Nile ready to march out at Moses' command?
The "biting insects" (mosquitoes probably more likely than gnats) of the third plague did not emerge gradually from cesspools but out of the dust of the ground when Aaron smacked it with his staff. And, it was not just a few insects but swarms that covered man and beast (8:17). Here also, even the magicians realized it was the "finger of God" (8:19). So, Moses saw the eggs were about to hatch and quickly commanded Aaron to smack the ground near some to claim a miracle?
The flies of the fourth plague were not breeding concurrently with the mosquitoes in the cesspools but a distinct plague that came out of the air. It was also not just a few flies but swarms to the point where "the houses of the Egyptians were filled with swarms of flies" (8:21). And, finally here, Goshen was protected from the flies. How exactly could that many flies in that timing come from cesspools? Furthermore, why would such flies avoid Goshen?
Here, it is claimed that anthrax killed the livestock. Perhaps that could be true, but it was all the livestock (9:6) and one would wonder if really every single one would have been infected. Furthermore, again, the Hebrews' livestock were fine (9:4). How could a disease like anthrax be so selective?
The boils did not arise slowly and gradually as the result of mosquitoes transferring anthrax but immediately after Moses tossed the soot in the air. (9:8-9). And, again, only the "all the Egyptians" were infected (9:11). How could it have been so abrupt? How could it have been so selective as to avoid the Hebrews?
Here, the causality link in Hort's theory breaks down. She just has to say that for some reason the first six things happened and then a storm "such as never has been in Egypt from the day it was founded until now" (9:18) just happened to arise. And, it came when Moses "stretched out his hand toward heaven" (9:22). Did Moses just happen to time it perfectly? Did he just somehow know the storm of the millennium was coming?
The locusts did not breed and arise gradually from more cesspools created by the storms, but when Moses stretched out his hand (10:13) they came in one an "east wind" (10:13) and they "covered the face of the whole land, so that the land was darkened" (10:15). When God was done, He sent a strong "west wind" that "drove them into the Red Sea" (10:19). Again, here her theory fails to account for the timing, magnitude, and duration.
While a sandstorm that lasts for three days has happened, such a theory cannot account for "pitch darkness" (10:22) again when Moses stretched out his hand toward heaven (10:22). Did he just happen to see the sandstorm coming and run quickly to Pharaoh, throw his hand in the air, and claim it was a plague? How did it plunge the land into "pitch darkness"? And, again, why was Goshen not affected by this darkness/storm (10:23)?
And, the tenth plague is not really the subject this week, but Hort says the tenth plague was not the death of the firstborn but the destruction of the last remains of the "first-fruits" of the harvest. And "due to a corruption of the Bible text" the word "firstborn" was misinterpreted. Yet, that completely ignores the context of Ex. 11:1-13:6, which describes in great detail the death of the firstborn. So, was the whole text "corrupted" but somehow created a cogent story line? And, how does Hort know what the original said since she claims we do not have it?
I hope now you can see how this attempt and others that claim natural causes for all the plagues are woefully inadequate. One does not even need to dig into the scientific detail but merely read the text to see that is the case.
So, could God have used natural forces in a supernatural way to bring about these plagues? Sure, He could have at least at some points, but the point is that the timing, magnitude, and duration of the plagues make purely natural explanations require more faith on our part than simply taking Scripture at its word. No, the plagues were real, judgment events that came from the hand of God. And, in the sermon of the next post, we will talk about what that means for us.
This fall at my church, I have had the pleasure of teaching an adult Sunday school class on bioethics, which is the ethics of medical decisions. It has been a great class so far, with great discussion and participation from my congregation. The class is designed to focus on practical issues that will likely come to bear on our lives personally sometime in our years and not so much on social issues, but it does still address social issues tangentially. This past Sunday what we discussed certainly does that: I began a two-week portion of the class on beginning-of-life issues. And, as God's providence would have it, a few days before I had to teach, Bill Nye decided he was going to post a video attempting to argue a pro-choice perspective. Now, to be completely honest and frank, the video is so lacking in actual, robust pro-choice argumentation that I almost skipped over writing about it. However, since Bill Nye is still popular and what he posted relates to what we discussed on Sunday, I changed my mind. But, before I discuss the video, you should watch it for yourself:
I am not going to try to critique the whole video but instead argue for why life and personhood begins at conception, which does address his argument; just not in a direct critique. There are others who have critiqued this video well enough. (See "Bill Nye the logical fallacy guy on abortion" for one such critique.) But, even though I am not going to critique his whole video, I do feel compelled to mention one thing.
Over and over again in the video Mr. Nye appeals to his listeners to "respect the facts." He emphasizes over and over again that there are scientific facts that pro-lifers need to hear and to which we need to pay attention. Yet, Mr. Nye only mentions two such "facts" in this video and both are wildly incorrect. He opens the video by saying "many more hundreds of eggs are fertilized than become humans... fertilization is not all you need; you have to attach to the uterine wall." Now, since his argument is sloppy, it is difficult to know exactly what he means, but it sounds like he is saying that hundreds more eggs are fertilized than attach to the uterus. Okay, that is fact number one, and it grossly, grossly, grossly inaccurate. It is very difficult to determine what the actual rate of implantation is, but all estimates fall between 30-80% of fertilized eggs attach (this paper estimates 70% attach/30% loss; this one also estimates 30% loss; this one estimates 25% fail to implant; and, this one estimates 20% do not attach). If we average these results, we get one out of four fertilized eggs does not attach, i.e. three out of four do attach to the uterine wall. Even if we use the lowest estimate of 30% implantation (i.e. only about one out of three attach to the uterus), Mr. Nye is still off by a factor of one hundred in his statement. Now, his entire argument is a logical fallacy, which I will get to below, but the point is that his "facts" are not facts at all but something he is either grossly misinformed about or is simply making up.
His second "fact" is that the Bible was written 5,000 year ago. Now, he does not technically say "Bible." He says, "I know it was written or your interpretation of a book written 5,000 years ago, 50 centuries ago, makes you think..." [sic] Given that pro-lifers are often Christians, one can only assume he is referring to the Bible. Well, again Mr. Nye is either misinformed or making things up, because the first books of the Bible were written in the 15th century BC, which means it began to be written about 3,500 years ago. Now, this is not as grossly inaccurate as his implantation "fact," but it still shows sloppy argumentation. If Mr. Nye wants us to "respect the facts," then perhaps he should give some and perhaps he should try to get it right when he does.
That is all I really want to say about the video directly. Again, there are good critiques written (e.g. see the one linked above). Instead, I want to argue why both Scripture and the scientific data point to life and personhood beginning at conception. Now, I have added "personhood" because most contemporary and decent pro-choice arguments have given up trying to argue for life not beginning at conception. That is because there is really little debate anymore that a human embryo is life from its earliest days. What is argued more often today is that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, or whatever term one uses are not persons and therefore do not deserve to be protected with the rights of personhood. Peter Singer of Princeton, for example, argues that a person is "A being of rational awareness--who they are existing beyond simply the physical organism." He even acknowledges that this excludes infants, but he does say that the law can protect them, if it so chooses. (Just to elaborate a little more: Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood and, therefore, "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.") So, we need to determine where personhood begins, where life begins, and if these are the same point. (I have already written some on personhood here in response to the Kermit Gosnell case, and here from the standpoint of the image of God.)
I think we can answer these questions all at once by looking at both the biblical and scientific information. I am first going to give a quick overview of the biblical data. It is going to be fast for two reasons: 1) most who take the Bible seriously do not really question that a human life is a person from its earliest days and 2) those who do not take the Bible seriously are not going to find this part of the argument very convincing anyway. If you are of that persuasion, stick with me please. You will get educated on what the Bible says on this subject and also (hopefully) see that the scientific data agrees (when interpreted rightly, and I make that caveat that because of what I have written about data and interpretation in this series on science).
Scripture:What does the Bible say about the beginning of life? Well, Christians must admit from the start that it does not really say anything directly about where life begins. There is no statement in Scripture that says, "Life and personhood begin at conception," but there are a lot of indirect statements in Scripture that show the Bible teaches that humans beings are life and persons from the earliest days in the womb. Here are a few passages that show us this:
Ex. 21:22-25: Here we see in the OT law code that if a woman is injured in such a way that she gives birth prematurely (which would cover miscarriages) and the baby dies, the responsible party receives the death penalty. Here we see that the in utero life is as valuable as the fully developed life that caused its harm or death.
Jdg. 13:13-14: Here we are in the beginning of the story about Samson. His mother is being told that she will conceive a child that will be a judge of Israel. His mother is also told that Samson is to be a Nazarite from the womb (for what that is, see Nu. 6). As a Nazarite, there were certain things that Samson could not eat or touch because they would make him unclean. But, in this verse we learn that Samson's mother also could not eat or touch those things because they would make Samson unclean through her. So, Samson in the womb, from conception onward could potentially become unclean. But, he would become an unclean what? An unclean person. Masses of tissue cannot become unclean with respect to the OT legal code.
Ps. 51:5: Ps. 51 is a very informative passage in general. David talks about himself in the womb and he uses personal pronouns to refer to himself. And, in this particular verse he identifies as an implicated sinner from conception. Tissue cannot be a sinner, but persons are sinners. Now, it is worthy of note that David's idea of conception was probably different from ours, but it does show that from the earliest days of pregnancy, in utero babies are considered human persons in Scripture.
Ps. 139:13-16: Here David again talks about his in utero self in personal terms, and he knows that God paid special, personal attention to him from the earliest days of pregnancy onward. The Bible does not speak this way about animals, much less masses of impersonal tissue but only about persons who can have a personal relationship with God.
Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:14-15: I will take these two together since they are similar situations. In these passages we see that Jeremiah and John the Baptists were "consecrated" (i.e. sanctified) and "filled with the Holy Spirit" in the womb. These men were regenerate (a theological term for new spiritual life being given, cf. e.g. Eze. 36:26; Jn. 3:5) from the womb. The question is a regenerate what? They were regenerate persons. Masses of impersonal tissue cannot be regenerated in theological terms.
Those are just a few examples of how the Scripture views life in the womb, and it views life in the womb as human persons from the earliest days of pregnancy onward. Now, we must admit that Scripture does not have the precision of a scientific study, but it does take us a long way back. Fortunately, God has revealed His truth in nature as well as in Scripture, and where Scripture is not as precise, nature picks up and we see that knowledge in the detailed studies of human development that modern scientific studies have revealed.
Scientific Data:What does the scientific data have to tell us about where human personhood begins? Most Christians would, of course, argue for the decisiveness of fertilization as the point where life and personhood begins, but why is that the case? Would medical information support that claim? I think so, and here is why.
In summary this is the argument: from the knowledge that we have of the human development process, fertilization is a unique, radical, and decisive event unlike any that occurs later on in development, and if one is going to assign personhood as an objective, non-arbitrary point, it must be here. Before fertilization, sperm and eggs are merely cells and do not have any possibility of developing into a full-grown human being or anything beyond themselves. Before fertilization, sperm and eggs really are part of the father and mother's bodies. But, after fertilization, the embryo is genetically unique and distinct, and he/she experiences an unbroken, continuous development unless something outside the embryo acts upon it, and at no other point does the child undergo a decisive and radical transformation into some other sort of being.
Fertilization is a process that takes about 24 hours, during which the egg's cytoplasm and sperm's nuclear contents merge in a process called syngamy and form the 46 chromosomes that define a human's physical existence. This newly formed entity is called a zygote and it is clearly genetically different from both the sperm and egg. The mitochondrial DNA matches the mother, the Y-chromosome (if it is there) matches the father, but the autosomal DNA is a completely unique genetic makeup, making the lifeform something completely new. WebMD notes (Emphasis added):
At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genome and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl.
At this point, the embryo will continue to develop towards fully independent life. This is crucial: the sperm and egg are living cells but have no possibility of independent life or life of further development (i.e. not persons), but the embryo is a new, genetically unique and complete individual that will follow human development unless otherwise interrupted by something outside itself. He/she is no longer part of the father or mother but a being all its own. The embryo is precisely not the mother's body, even though Mr. Nye and so many others keep sounding that mantra. Once fertilization occurs, the child is not a growth of cells or tissues like some kind of tumor in the woman's uterus. It is a genetically unique life that is distinct from both the father and the mother. And, it is scientific knowledge, to which Mr. Nye so often appeals, that gives us this insight. Christians and other's who are pro-life are not basing that determination based solely on Scripture but on what Scripture and scientific knowledge show us. Scripture only takes us so far (though it is far enough to protect persons in the womb), but scientific data takes us all the way back to conception. Mr. Nye is correct when he says:
You wouldn’t know how big a human egg was if it weren’t for microscopes, if it weren’t for scientists, medical researchers looking diligently. You wouldn’t know the process. You wouldn’t have that shot, the famous shot or shots where the sperm are bumping up against the egg. You wouldn’t have that without science.
But, that knowledge leads in the opposite direction of the conclusion that he (and others) is attempting to draw. Perhaps before the modern scientific knowledge about human development one could argue that the fetus is part of the "woman's body," but now scientific knowledge has shown us that from the moment of conception onward, it is not her body. It might be in her body and it might be dependent on her body for initial development, but it is not her body. It is a distinct, unique human being. (Some out there might be aware of the "violinist" argument that attempts to say that it does not matter that the baby is not part of the mother's body. I do not have the space to deal with that here and others have dealt with it adequately. For a critique of that argument, see this article.)
So, again, this is a radical transformation in which two entities (genetically different from one another) combine to form a genetically unique living human that will become a full-grown human under normal circumstances. If one is going to assign personhood not based on something external to the embryo and/or arbitrary in its development, that must be here. Other proposed points do not reflect any similar level of change within the human being or other points propose a definition of personhood that is arbitrary, at best. Let's take a look at the other proposed points. I will start at the latest points and move to the earliest (with the exception of the last, for a reason that will be explained then).
Birth: While birth is certainly a decisive event in human life, the baby undergoes no change in itself. Its location changes, but the baby does not change in any defining way. The day on which the mother happened to go into labor had no effect on the baby's ability to living independently of the mother (again, under normal circumstances) and no effect on its existence other than location. In fact, a few years ago, in The Journal of Medical Ethics, a couple of doctors argued for the validity of after birth abortions. This, of course, is the logical extension of pre-birth abortions because there is no moral or personal distinction between the unborn child and the newly-born child. Moving down the birth canal does not change the personhood of the baby. (Of course, this logical extension should lead our culture to realize killing the unborn is wrong, but unfortunately, some, like the above linked article, use that realization to argue for infanticide.) So, again, birth is an important event, but it changes nothing about the personhood of the baby.
Viability: Others suggest that viability is the radical point where personhood begins--the point where the baby could survive outside the mother. Hopefully you can see that this is as transparently false as birth as a possibility. The point of viability is quite independent of the child itself. Viability depends on medical technology. This recent paper in The Journal of the American Medical Association shows how dramatically things have changed when it comes to viability even in the past 20 years. It shows that in 1993, only 52% of infants born at 24 weeks survived. Compare that with 2012: 65% survived. The percentage increase in healthy premature infants is also striking: 47% of infants born at 27 weeks in 2012 survived without major illnesses, compared to 29% in 1993. As medical technology progresses, viability gets pushed further back in pregnancy.
Therefore, it is impossible to determine a decisive viability point in the child's development because it depends on medical technology. It is conceivable and even likely that eventually human beings will be able to develop in a lab. Furthermore, because it depends on medical technology, a baby that is viable today may not have been viable 50 years ago. Did human personhood change in the past 50 years? Or, to make it even more acute: If a mother travels form America to Cuba, a baby that is viable in the morning can become unviable in the afternoon. How does that change its personhood? Assigning personhood to viability is completely arbitrary.
Quickening: Others have suggested "quickening," which is the point at which the mother can first feel the baby move. This has historical precedence even in Christianity because hundreds of years ago (i.e. before we understood human development like we do now), it was believed by a few theologians that quickening was the point the soul was placed in the baby. But, quickening fails to demonstrate a decisive change to personhood from both a scientific and biblical perspective. From a scientific perspective, knowledge of human development shows us there is no substantial change in the child at that point, but that is simply the point at which they started moving enough for the mother to feel it. Furthermore, any mother who has had more than one baby knows that in the second pregnancy she could feel it earlier because she knew what she is feeling for. How can that affect personhood? It does not. From a biblical perspective, there is no information in Scripture about when the soul comes into existence or even if it is directly created by God or comes about by a physical process God designed. And, the above mentioned biblical data would certainly push personhood further back than quickening.
Full Nervous System Integration: Still others have suggested that personhood should be placed at the point where the fetus' nervous system is fully integrated (roughly about the 20th week of pregnancy). With this argument, rationality is made completely integral to personhood, and it is argued, then, that the fetus does not have the physical apparatus capable of rationality until this point, therefore the child is not a person until this point.
Attempting to place personhood at this point has several problems (at least). First, this argument depends on definition of personhood that overemphasizes rationality. I would first point out that to some degree "rational" is a subjective term. Furthermore, some elderly with Alzheimer's are not rational, at least not as we would define it in normal usage. Are they no longer persons? Sometimes a mental handicap makes the individual unable to be achieve rationality beyond that of an infant, so should we not consider them persons? A definition of personhood which depends heavily on rationality is dubious, at best. Second, just because the nervous system is integrated and the neurological structure for rationality is there, the fetus hardly thinks or acts rational at that time. That activity requires much more development that extends into early childhood. And, even before the nervous system is integrated, the potential is there; just at an earlier stage of development. And, finally, there is no consensus on when the nervous system is truly, fully integrated, so there is no identifiable point in time anyway. Therefore, attempting to assign personhood to the point of full nervous system integration is as arbitrary as any other point.
Implantation: Finally, we are back around to what Mr. Nye seems to suggest in his video: that implantation is the point at which life and personhood begins. (Although, again, since his argument is not very coherent, it is difficult to tell what point he is actually trying to make.) But, let's think about implantation. This generally happens 3-4 days after fertilization, and it is argued by many, not just Mr. Nye, that this is the point at which we should start to protect life, i.e. where personhood begins.
There are two parts of this argument that need to be addressed. First, those who simply say that personhood should begin at implantation commit the logical fallacy of assuming that location can somehow affect the personhood of an entity. Nothing changes in the embryo itself when it attaches, but it simply continues to develop like normal. In fact, comparing a successful pregnancy to an ectopic pregnancy shows that development does not change at all whether the baby is in the uterus or a Fallopian tube. The only thing that changes is location. How can a change of location change personhood? The answer is "It can't." (For more argumentation along this line, see this article on the SLED test.)
There is, however, another version of this argument that references the rate of implantation, which may be what Mr. Nye was attempting to argue, just with inaccurate numbers and little clarity. The argument is generally presented as follows: "Well, one in four fertilized embryos does not implant naturally, so this if it happens naturally, what is the problem with making it happen with a pill?" To this we can respond: just because something happens naturally (i.e. out of the control of the mother and father) does not make it moral for us to do it intentionally. One might simply point out that infant mortality rate in some third-world countries is one in four, so does that give parents the right to kill their newborns? And, of course, no one would say yes to that.
Both of the above versions of the implantation argument fail to demonstrate a change from non-person to person. Furthermore, even if personhood were to begin here, it would rule out almost all forms of abortion except for some forms of birth control and the so-called "morning after pills." Now, do not get me wrong, I still argue against those because life and personhood both begin at conception, but arguing for implantation as the point of personhood does not really help the major pro-choice agenda.
Individuation: There is one final point that some attempt establish personhood, which is more challenging than all the previous ones, which is why I broke the pattern of moving further back in human development and saved it for last. There is a stage in pregnancy that is often called "individuation." This is the point at which twinning is no longer possible, which is about two weeks after fertilization.
Twinning (or more precisely monozygotic twinning) is where a single embryo can split into two embryos of the exact same genetic makeup and therefore these can develop into identical twins. This is rare (three to four occurrences per one thousand births) but possible and perhaps even possible in any pregnancy (but no one is sure, see below about the mystery of this process). It is even rarer but still possible that the embryos will recombine into one embryo again. But, it is not possible, as far as we presently know, for this to occur after two weeks, which is where individuation is said to happen. So, some use this argument for the two-week mark to be the point where personhood begins. As the argument goes, we cannot claim the embryo is an individual because it could potentially become two (or more) individuals for the first two weeks. It is not an individual until that possibility has passed, it is argued. Advocates of this argument would say the embryo is a living being at fertilization but not a person because they have not individualized yet.
I think you can probably see why this is the most challenging and robust point to challenge conception for personhood. It does sound compelling at first because how can someone be a person and not an individual? Most of us would say, "Well, they cannot." But, there are some major problems with this point that I think render it unacceptable as well.
First, I would argue that twinning is extremely rare. Most embryos experience a continuous line of development from conception onward and nothing decisive happens at the two-week mark that changes that its being. While twinning may effect a change in the being, the lack of twinning does not change the being. So, for most pregnancies, there is no reason to argue that the embryo is not an individual before this point since if they do not twin, nothing decisive happens.
Second, why embryos twin or do not twin is entirely a mystery at present. No one knows if it is something genetically inherent in the embryo or whether it is forced on it from an outside source. But, those seem like the two possibilities, so let's examine both:
If twinning is caused by something genetically inherent in the embryo, then most embryos have no potential of twinning and therefore they are individuals from the beginning. And, furthermore, since it is part of the embryo's genome, could we not say that before twinning we have two (or possibly more) individuals? If it is genetically guaranteed that the embryo will twin, then we have multiple individuals in the process of development before the two-week mark, they simply have not separated yet. And, if we have multiple individuals from conception onward, then there is still no compelling reason to argue they are not persons.
If twinning is caused by something external to the baby, then just because something can force a change in an entity does not mean that entity is not an individual. That does not necessarily follow at all.
Twinning is a mysterious process, and the current state of scientific knowledge does not prove the lack of individuality in the first two weeks. At this point, one could invoke the "hunter" analogy. When a hunter sees something rustling in the bushes, any responsible hunter knows they must not shoot until they know what is rustling. Just because it is mysterious does not give the hunter the right to squeeze the trigger. This type of reasoning applies to the mystery of the twinning process. Prudence and responsibility require that we err on the side of caution, not taking the risk and hoping everything comes out okay.
In conclusion: Scripture compels us to the conclusion that a fetus is a human being and person from the earliest days, and where Scripture is not explicit, scientific knowledge comes back and shows us that there is radical change in the fetus only at fertilization, so if one is going to assign personhood not based on an arbitrary time or something outside of the child, then conception is the only identifiable, definable, objective point. All other points are extraneous definitions put on the child by others, and external definitions are subjective, not objective. And, subjective definitions are dubious, at best. If there is no authoritative, objective point, then personhood becomes defined by community (which is what Singer tries to do) or the laws that protect non-persons are defined by community. Either way, if definitions are made by the community, then a vote determines the life or death of millions. And, if that is the case, why do we get angry about atrocities like, for example, what the Nazis did? They defined personhood in such a way that Jews did not count in their community. In fact, they had a name for it: Untermensch--sub-human. Only by putting personhood and life at conception can we avoid such arbitrary dehumanizing of those made in God's image and give them the dignity and value they deserve.
In the previous six posts, I put forth what I believe to be a biblical view of science and Scripture, and I gave some advice on how to hand apparent conflicts between "science and religion," "science and Christianity," "science and faith," or however we label the tension. In that series, I said several times that I was not trying to tell you what to believe on certain sub-topics of science and Christianity (e.g. the age of the universe) but trying to teach you howto think biblically about science and consistently as a Christian. Well, there are a number of sub-topics on which I am sure you would like more information, so in this post I will list a number of resources that I think you may find helpful. But, if you still cannot find what you are looking for, feel free to comment and ask about something I do not mention here.
I hope these are helpful to you as you think biblically about science and consistently as a Christian. Remember, feel free to comment and ask for a recommendation on a topic not listed here. I may not have a good one that I have read, but it never hurts to ask.
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:
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
So, as many of you know by now, I am in the middle of a series on science and Scripture (actually nature and Scripture, and you can read about why I make that distinction in the first post), and my goal in this series has not been to tell you what to think regarding some of the sub-topics of science and Scripture (e.g. the age of the universe) but to help you to learn how to think about science biblically and consistently as a Christian. In the first four posts in this series, laid a biblical framework for doing just that, using the analogy of building an intellectual and spiritual "house." And, in sum, that framework is the following:
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.
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.
In the third post of this series, we began to look at human fallibility, and I argued that 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. We can think of this as the framework for our house, upon which we can put a metaphorical roof and walls.
And, in the fourth post in this series, we talked about where the conflict really lies when we hear about apparent "contradictions" between science and faith, science and Christianity, or however one words the tension. There I argued that the conflict is not between science and Christianity but between two worldviews: naturalism and theism. In short, it is not that "science" says things that conflict with what Scripture actually teaches but that a scientist interpreting the data through a naturalistic worldview says those things, but a Christian can interpret the same data from science through a theistic and biblical worldview and derive an interpretation that is just as valid. So, the conflict is not between science and Scripture or the data they give us but between the worldviews of fallible humans interpreting that data. And, if we move the argument up out of the finer details of various interpretations of data into the realm of worldview, then we get at the heart of the problem, and the debate becomes which worldview can best explain the universe in which we live.
Today we are going to move forward using this biblical framework for thinking about science and Scripture, and we are going to start to talk about how to live in a world that is over-impressed by science. Now, when I say "over-impressed by science," please do not misunderstand me. I love science. My background is in physics, and I still read several of the top journals on a regular basis. Science is a great tool, but our culture has raised science from the level of a wonderful tool to the status of an all-encompassing worldview, which is not where it belongs (see this post for more details on that). That is why I say our contemporary culture is "over-impressed by science." So, we need to learn how to live in such a world, and, moving forward, learning how to live in our day and age, will help us to put the "walls" and a "roof" on the metaphorical houses that we are building. But, let me say right at the outset that our houses will not be perfect. There will be some leaks in our roofs and drafts in our walls because we are fallible humans, but if we learn to think within the biblical framework we have laid out, our houses can be sufficient to live confidently as Christians in our world.
First, we need to talk briefly about the ways that people attempt to relate science and Scripture, science and faith, or however one puts the tension. There is a continuum of possibilities with two polar extremes, and we need to think about where in this continuum we should build our "houses":
On one end of the spectrum is the constant clash idea. This is the view of many today who write books and news articles, and it’s the idea science and religion, particularly Christianity, will always be at odds. Usually this is held by atheists and they use it to say that Christianity simply needs to give up and listen to everything they claim "science says," which remember is not science but their naturalistic interpretation of the data. However, I have met some Christians that try to live here. Yet, I would argue that is not faithful to Scripture. As we talked about yesterday, God has told us that He has revealed Himself and His truth in nature, so the study of nature starting from the proper, biblical assumptions, will never truly conflict with Christianity. That was the foundation of our house that we learned about in the third post.
On the other end of the spectrum is the independence idea. This is the view that "science" and Christianity are totally independent of one another. They should never come into contact so they should never conflict, agree, or relate to each other at all. Some more moderate atheists take this position, but usually they are not the ones writing books because they do not care to write books about two things that, in their view, should not interact at all anyway. Yet, this is not sustainable either. The worldview of naturalism held by many scientists puts them in the position of having to make religious conclusions: like how the universe came into being, what is the meaning of our existence, why the universe is finely tuned for life, etc. Their answers to those questions are answers that are inherently religious, which sets them up right in front of Christians ready to clash. Now, I have also heard some Christians take this view. They usually phrase it differently, saying something like: "Science answers the "how" and "when" questions--e.g. how the universe came into being and when it happened--and Christianity answers the "who" and "why" questions--who created it and why He did it." Now, there is some truth to that, but it is not completely true and fails at several points:
First, because someone has to approach the data from science with a worldview and interpret it within that worldview, they have assumptions about "who" and "why" that play into their interpretation of "how" and "when." If the naturalist assumes no one created it and there is no meaning to it, then that affects how they interpret the data. Christians know God created the universe and that He did it for His own glory, which affects how we interpret the data as well. So, the "how" and "when" questions can never really be independent of the answers we assume to the "who" and "why" questions.
Second, while Scripture is not a scientific textbook designed to give us details about genetics, physics, biology, etc., that does not mean Scripture has nothing to say about our universe and how it came into being. Ge. 1-2; Jb. 9, 38-41; Ps. 104, 148; and many other Scriptures make some very specific claims about the creation of this universe. We do not have time to discuss the creation account itself and the various interpretations of those passages, but one cannot simply say, "Well, all those passages are just allegories or something like that and aren't making scientific claims." They are to some degree or another. So, Scripture does have some things to tell us about the universe and the how and when of its creation, and since Scripture is our highest authority that should come into play for a Christian interpreting the data from science.
Third, while the data science gives us from nature is not a philosophical or theological textbook designed to give us details about God, nature is a book written by God that does declare His power and manifest some of His divine attributes. That is why Ro. 1:20 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. So they [i.e. all mankind] are without excuse." So, nature does have some things to tell us about the who and why of creation. These things are not as detailed as what Scripture tells us, but it is simply false to claim there is no information about God there at all.
So, an atheist who does not understand Scripture and who does not think through his naturalistic assumptions completely might be able to get away with saying that science and religion should simply be completely independent, but a Christian who wants to be faithful to God's Word cannot live there. So, we Christians have to build our house in the middle, which is integration territory--Scripture is our highest authority that puts parameters around how we interpret the data from scientific research, and the data from scientific research can help us refine our interpretations of Scripture. This is where we start to put walls a roof on our intellectual houses that we are building.
As we move forward in learning how to live in a world over-impressed with science, we need to talk about an idea that is inherent in the last sentence of the previous paragraph: mutual correction between our interpretations of science and our interpretations of Scripture. Now, please when I say that, do not jump to the conclusion that I am trying to say the claims of scientists can overturn/override Scripture. They cannot. I am committed to the inerrancy, inspiration, and authority of Scripture, as we talked about in the first post. Have you ever heard of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy? It is a document about the inerrancy of Scripture written in 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders a bunch of different denominations. It is very, very helpful in defining inerrancy. In the 12th article it says this:
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
I completely agree with that statement. But, note that it says scientific hypotheses cannot overturn the "teaching of Scripture," i.e. they cannot overturn God's infallible revelation, what Scripture actually teaches. And, of course they cannot. God is the author of both books, so the data from science properly interpreted will never even attempt to overturn the actual teaching of Scripture, and if it does, then that theory is just wrong. But, that little world "actual" is very important. R.C. Sproul, who was one of the great pastors and defenders of the Christian faith of the 20th century, wrote in his book Scripture Alonewhen talking about this article of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy:
It is important to note that the second denial… does not carry with it the implication that scientific hypotheses or scientific research are useless to the student of the Bible or that science never has anything to contribute to an understanding of biblical material. It merely denies that the actual teaching of Scripture can be overturned by teachings from external sources… To say that science cannot overturn the teaching of Scripture is not to say that science cannot aid the church in understanding Scripture, or even correct false inferences drawn from Scripture or actual misinterpretations of the Scripture.
Perhaps several examples might be helpful here. First, any claim of a scientist about his scientific research cannot overturn the actual teaching of Scripture.
For example, Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss have each written a book claiming that God is no longer necessary for the beginning of the universe (my responses to both of them can be found here and here). They claim that the universe could create itself and attempt to show why that can happen. Now, there are a number of scientific inaccuracies in their claim (check out my responses for some of those), but from a Christian, biblical perspective, we do not even need to go that far to know they are just plain wrong. However we interpret the creation of account of Scripture, there is one thing that is beyond dispute when it comes to the actual teaching of Scripture: God did the creating. Christians can perhaps debate amongst themselves how God did it and how long it took Him, but no one debates the fact that He did it. That is the actual teaching of Scripture, Hawking and Krauss' theories really have nothing for us to help us understand Scripture.
Another example might be Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett's claims that resurrection from the dead is impossible. They claim to have scientific reasons for believing that, but really it is their naturalistic assumptions that makes them believe that, yet they attempt offer some scientific theories trying to prove that resurrection from the dead is impossible. Now, they are just plain wrong about that. 1 Co. 15 is quite clear: If Jesus was not raised from the dead bodily, then our faith is in vain. The actual teaching of Scripture is that Jesus had a physical, bodily resurrection from the dead. There is no other legitimate way to interpret that. So, any scientific theories that claim otherwise, cannot help us understand Scripture better.
Yet, there are times when a scientific theory can help us understand Scripture better or correct a misinterpretation of Scripture, as Sproul states above. As we established in our biblical understanding of science and Scripture: we are fallible humans who sometimes make do mistakes in our interpretations of Scripture. The example I gave in part 3 of how Copernicus' (and later on Galileo and Newton's) heliocentric model of our solar system helped correct misinterpretations of Scripture is an easy illustration to point out again. For more than 1000 years, Christians thought they had the right interpretation of passages like Jos. 10 that seem to say that the earth does not move and the sun moves around the earth, and it was not just Christians but scientists did too. But, over the course of about 200 years, scientific research corrected both Christians and scientists' interpretations of nature and Scripture. So, now virtually everyone agrees that the earth moves around the sun.
At this point, when I was first giving this information as a seminar to college students, it was asked, "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 great question, and it is one that we will address in the next post, for this one is getting too long as it is.
