Thursday, February 17, 2011

Science and the Christian

I define myself as a Christian and as a scientist. Both are deeply ingrained in who I am and influence the way I look at the world.

One of the great dis-satisfactions of my life is the apparent contradiction between faith and science in most people's minds. This is most obvious in the evolution "debate".

The average scientist (and non-Christian of a scientific bent) is suspicious of faith. This is because faith, by definition, cannot be proven or reasoned: it is "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1). As a result, the message of salvation looks like foolishness (I Corinthians 1:18-25) to those who see reason as the only means of attaining knowledge.

Similarly, scientific inquiry, by definition, precludes the concept of faith: science is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

Therefore, faith and science answer completely different sets of questions. Faith addresses what we cannot see/prove, and science what we can see/prove.

God's existence is outside the scientific realm: it cannot be proven or disproven through observation or experimentation. It must be accepted by faith. Hebrews 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

The danger of the creation/evolution debate -- the reason it is debated at all, much less debated with such strong emotions -- is that both sides think the answer to this debate will prove or disprove God's existence.
One side reasons: if the natural world can be proven to have come about through evolution, then God is unnecessary and therefore must not exist.
The other side reasons: if the 6-day creation can be proven, then God must exist.

However, I think both arguments are flawed. If evolution were proven fact (and it pretty much is), this would not in any way address the existence of God. God could still be "for whom and through whom everything exists" (Hebrews 2:10).

As a product of my alma mater Calvin College, I have been influenced on this subject by the teachings of present-day philosopher Alvin Plantinga. I came across a good quotation from Dr. Plantinga (on Wikipedia, of course!) which concisely shows his stance as a Christian on evolution. It is from a letter to the editor published on April 11, 2010, in the Chronicle of Higher Education:
As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.

As for the 6-day creation, the evidence supporting it is inconsequential compared to the stack of evidence for evolution, and I think God did this on purpose. Again, if His existence could be proven scientifically (by proving a 6-day creation), then what would be the value of faith? This would go against the teaching of the Bible that the only way to God is through faith.

Now, I have close friends who take the Genesis account of creation literally, and I respect them for it. This is a subject I do NOT discuss with church friends -- there is no need to proselytize on an issue that does not impact salvation. My only qualm is when Christians want and seek scientific evidence supporting a 6-day creation. As I mentioned, evidence from God's own world supports evolution -- genetics, molecular biology, comparative anatomy, anthropology, geology, astronomy. So the only argument for a 6-day creation that I could support is one that that does not rely on scientific evidence:
(1) when sin entered the world, the whole creation fell (Romans 8:22);
(2) as a result, the fallen world lies about its Creator.
(3) If the creation lies about it's Creator, then evolution could be false. The literal version of creation in the Bible is more reliable and must be accepted on faith rather than the world's evidence.
However, again, I do not think this is true. I think God purposely made scientific inquiry neutral, unable to prove or disprove His existence, since proving His existence scientifically would undermine faith.


Nevertheless, there is a growing movement among evangelical Christians to search for scientific evidence supporting the 6-day creation. Actually, in the absence of data supporting Creationism, proponents of this "intelligent design" movement essentially try to undermine evolution by proving that it could not have happened without the direct interference of a rational designer. They resurrect the 'God of the gaps' explanations of long ago: that anything we do not understand, such as great complexities in nature, must be evidence that God stepped in and zapped things into their current form. I reject that as naive and dangerous. If gaps are necessary to prove God's existence to you, then any advance in scientific knowledge is a threat to your belief in God. (No wonder you would be fearful of science!) Thinking these gaps prove God is merely setting yourself up for trouble (or delaying your unbelief) as science inevitably makes gains in our understanding of this beautifully complex world.

I believe that God certainly could zap that way but would not chose to do so at random moments in creation -- I believe that the natural laws He put into place to govern our world throughout its existence are beautiful and sufficient. He can oversee and guide without blatant interference, as if the world had hiccups and He needed to stand by and pound it on the back now and then. (I don't mean to imply that He doesn't ever zap -- those are miracles.)

Here is Dr. Plantinga's take on the matter, taken from the same source:
Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed." The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I'm dubious about that.

Nevertheless, I'm grateful to proponents of intelligent design for actually caring about and studying science! I am often appalled by how few Christians have taken the time to understand the theory of evolution and its supporting evidence. They shy away from science as if it were something tainted or less worthy of their consideration than other pursuits. They worry that it will undermine their belief in God. This, again, I think, goes back to the mistaken belief that evolution proves that God does not exist.

To me, Christians should love to consider and explore God's creation, the work of His hands. The more we explore, the more we can marvel and glorify our Creator God. The Bible makes it clear that God's world is irrefutable evidence of His power and divinity "so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). The psalmist states that the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19).

However, before being too hard on Christians for their ignorance of evolution, I have noticed that many practicing scientists take evolution for granted without themselves studying the evidence -- they are often as ignorant as the average creationist layman. They hold to the philosophies of naturalism and reductionism without ever having heard the terms or considered the feasibility of the alternatives. (The image below, a duck automaton built in 1739 by Jacques de Vaucanson, is an extreme illustration of reductionism: the duck as a product of its digestive parts) They also do not reject belief in God but are unwilling to discuss it -- they are as fearful of the subject as Christians often are of science.

I could go on and on about Christianity and evolution but will stop here for today. Another day I will set down my reflections about the Genesis account of creation and about Christian views of reductionism and naturalism.


Today's gratitude (unrelated to the above thoughts): Today's warmer weather reminds me of the promise of spring. No matter how cold and long winter seems, we can be absolutely assured that it will end in glorious spring. Like the sunrise, spring's inevitability is a beautiful illustration of hoping in the Lord -- He faithfully delivers on His promises. Hope in God is not wishful thinking but absolute certainty.

A link to Dr. Plantinga's letter to the editor

No comments: